Solved

Verify network design

Posted on 2011-10-01
2
426 Views
Last Modified: 2012-05-12
Hello all,

I am working on a hypothetical networking assignment.

Basically I am asking this (referring to my attached diagram):
If I have three computers - 192.168.0.2, 192.168.9.2, and 192.168.10.2, can they all communicate with each other?

Read below for more explanation...
I created a design (following some constraints) and, since I don't have a way to physically test it, I'd like to see if someone can verify whether it should work or not.

My business has a class B backbone (172.16.n.0) to connect my networks together. Attached to this are four class C networks (192.168.n.0) to start with (one for each department). Each network will only have up to thirty computers total.

The business will grow to have up to thirty departments, e.g. up to thirty networks. Twenty-six networks will have up to fifty workstations, but four of them may grow to up to five hundred workstations (i.e. 3300 total possible workstations for the whole business).

All of the workstations in the business must be able to communicate with each other.
IPv4 must be used.
As far as I know (it is unclear), I am not allowed to use additional class B networks for private addressing.
Also, I must be able to create a predictable algorithm to assign IP addresses to new equipment as it is added.

I have created a diagram of how the network could be set up to be expandable.
Each department will have its own router with a class C network (192.168.n.0). The first network will be 0.0, the second will be 8.0, the third will be 16.0, and so on. For a department that has up to fifty workstations, they will be directly connected to that department's router.

For a department that has up to five hundred workstations, they will have additional routers. For instance, if the department with the 8.0 network has five hundred computers, it will have two child networks: 9.0 and 10.0. Each of these will have two hundred and fifty workstations connected.

I am not entirely sure that I am understanding and/or using the class B backbone correctly, but I think I am.
proposal1.png
0
Comment
Question by:Zanat
[X]
Welcome to Experts Exchange

Add your voice to the tech community where 5M+ people just like you are talking about what matters.

  • Help others & share knowledge
  • Earn cash & points
  • Learn & ask questions
2 Comments
 
LVL 3

Accepted Solution

by:
vannerv earned 125 total points
ID: 36897508
Zanat,

> Basically I am asking this (referring to my attached diagram):
> If I have three computers - 192.168.0.2, 192.168.9.2, and 192.168.10.2, can they all communicate with each other?

YES

> Each network will only have up to thirty computers total.
> Twenty-six networks will have up to fifty workstations, but four of them may grow to up to five hundred workstations

30, 50 or 500 maximum workstations per network?

> As far as I know (it is unclear), I am not allowed to use additional class B networks for private addressing.

Wrong assumption, you do can use another private address /16 network.

> Also, I must be able to create a predictable algorithm to assign IP addresses to new equipment as it is added.

My experience says that you should allocate the next block available that meets your needs. Reservation should be avoided.

> For a department that has up to five hundred workstations, they will have additional routers. For instance, if the department with the 8.0 network has five hundred computers, it will have two child networks: 9.0 and 10.0. Each of these will have two hundred and fifty workstations connected.

For what I could understand of your diagram and network design ideas, you are cascading your networks when it surpass the 100 node barrier (maybe to avoid a big broadcast domain) . If you can, you should avoid the cascading, all the network would be better connected directly to the department router. Cascading is only useful to extend the network reach  beyond the 100 meters copper cable limit.

> I am not entirely sure that I am understanding and/or using the class B backbone correctly, but I think I am

I don't see any problem, but classes are not really important these days.

Regards,

Vanner


0
 

Author Closing Comment

by:Zanat
ID: 36897580
Thank you for your thorough input!
0

Featured Post

DevOps Toolchain Recommendations

Read this Gartner Research Note and discover how your IT organization can automate and optimize DevOps processes using a toolchain architecture.

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

Join Greg Farro and Ethan Banks from Packet Pushers (http://packetpushers.net/podcast/podcasts/pq-show-93-smart-network-monitoring-paessler-sponsored/) and Greg Ross from Paessler (https://www.paessler.com/prtg) for a discussion about smart network …
David Varnum recently wrote up his impressions of PRTG, based on a presentation by my colleague Christian at Tech Field Day at VMworld in Barcelona. Thanks David, for your detailed and honest evaluation!
Here's a very brief overview of the methods PRTG Network Monitor (https://www.paessler.com/prtg) offers for monitoring bandwidth, to help you decide which methods you´d like to investigate in more detail.  The methods are covered in more detail in o…
This video gives you a great overview about bandwidth monitoring with SNMP and WMI with our network monitoring solution PRTG Network Monitor (https://www.paessler.com/prtg). If you're looking for how to monitor bandwidth using netflow or packet s…

733 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question