Changing IP subnet question (major reconfiguration)

A little background first:

Our current configuration in the office is 192.168.1.0 (255.255.255.0 mask) and we are running Windows 2008 DHCP server (if this makes a difference).  We currently have 30 IP's left before we're at full capacity on the 192.168.1.0/24 network.

Now to the questions and thanks in advance for reading this and trying to follow it all.

We are thinking the best solution to add more hosts is to just redo the whole network on a class B subnet, such as 172.16.0.1 w/ mask 255.255.252.0.  Is this too many hosts to have on one network segment?  We have no routers and we don't have any VLAN's set up if necessary.  We're using Cisco switches w/ gigabit to desktop.

The only issue I see (besides the major headache of reconfiguring everything) is the amount of hosts on the network.  Although we probably won't go over 400 hosts in the near future, and by that time we should be fully IPv6 implemented, should I just use 255.255.254.0?  Does it make a difference on broadcasting?

Are there any other solutions that would make sense?  I was reading about supernetting / superscope but I believe this required a router?  All of our network accessed one database server and one file server, so wouldn't all that traffic have to go through the router anyhow?

We're in no real hurry here since I will be on vacation we can't implement until 3 weeks from now.

Thanks again :)


Jesh1975Asked:
Who is Participating?
 
Dangle79Connect With a Mentor Commented:
No, that's not too many hosts. It may not be recommended but I'm running a 200 bed hospital on a flat class B with 2000+ hosts on the local subnet.

i don't envy re-doing that at all
0
 
Jesh1975Author Commented:
Ok.  It looks like we will switch then to the new addresses.  I am NOT looking forward to this.  Especially reconfiguring all the network cameras the the surveillance software to use the new IP's.  

Maybe this will be a good time to redesign the network while I am at it.

Thanks. :)
0
 
Dangle79Commented:
absolutely. the cop-out would be to leave the static stuff on its own vlan and just build scratch on a new vlan for the dhcp hosts (likely what i'll end up doing someday)
0
Never miss a deadline with monday.com

The revolutionary project management tool is here!   Plan visually with a single glance and make sure your projects get done.

 
Jesh1975Author Commented:
Thanks - figure we might as well just redo it all now and I might consider VLAN's in the future.  We just get a lot of people coming in with wireless devices, and although the lease duration is short, they tend to come in waves.
0
 
davorinCommented:
Even if the question is already closed I would like to make a comment.
If you have L3 switches, than you can use a switch to route between separate segments or VLANs.
Routing on L3 switches if faster than on routers. There is no need (I assume) to have security and surveillance equipment on the same segment as client computers and servers. The number of computers is not big, but when switches will not have a MAC address in their MAC address tables, the broadcast will be transfered to all 400 hosts.
0
 
bevhostCommented:
I agree that you should add a new /16 segment and leave all your cameras alone.  Set up a device that will route between the subnetz.  This will avoid a massive cutover.
0
 
bevhostCommented:
If you want. A free software router that will run on a PC Google MikroTik.
A trial key should do everything you need.
0
 
bevhostCommented:
If you want. A free software router that will run on a PC Google MikroTik.
A trial key should do everything you need.
0
 
Dangle79Commented:
@ davorin

that's sort of what i was getting at with my last post, i just didn't go into much detail not knowing how the network is structured. if all of the static hosts are on their own switches that would be simple, but if not he'd have to set up all the trunking and assign access ports on the different vlans. granted that could probably be avoided maybe by assigning multiple vlan1 IPs etc.

no matter how you slice it, a lot of work
0
 
bevhostCommented:
You don't have to put separate networks into separate VLANs
you can run them all on the same network just fine,
but you do need a router to route between the subnets.
0
All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.