• Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 359
  • Last Modified:

Network Addressing Plan

I am in the process of restructuring the company network from a 10.x.x.x network to a 172.16.x.x network. I found a number of addressing plans on the internet that talk about phases and how to plan, but it would be pretty legit to find an actual plan out there so I can read what someone else did in their planning.

Does anyone know where I can see an actual network addressing plan or template?
Also, should voice be on an entirely different subnet, be placed on static, QoS, etc.?

Thanks in advance!
Paul Wagner
Paul Wagner
  • 3
  • 3
1 Solution
Andres PeralesCommented:
I am not sure what you mean exactly by Network Addressing Plan, but I would tell you from some experience is to separate your subnets!

Separating subnets makes management easier at the edge, as well from a visual monitoring perpective.

Not sure why you are moving or transitioning from your 10.x.x.x scheme to a 172.16.x.x scheme but okay...

voice = one or two subnets
servers = one or two subnets
management = one or two subnets
iSCSI - on it's own subnet
Clients on there own networks

so on and so forth...for my client networks I have broken it up by building or wing that also helps with management and troubleshooting...plus security boundaries.
Paul WagnerFriend To Robots and RocksAuthor Commented:

Sooo... this is what I have so far:

172.16.x.x -for servers -for users - 0.254 - hosts, servers, AP's, printers, etc. - 2.254 -PC's - 3.254 -Voice - 4.254 - VPN users

Does that jive with you?

.... we feel it is best to leave the 10.x.x.x network because we have two companies that merged and they both use the primary 10.x.x.x but then they have different subnets that overlap, combined with firewall rules, combined with IP conflicts, etc, we just feel it'd be easier to build a new network on the side and then bring everyone into the new plan/scheme.
Craig BeckCommented:
172.16.x.x -for servers -for users - 0.254 - hosts, servers, AP's, printers, etc. - 2.254 -PC's - 3.254 -Voice - 4.254 - VPN users
It's one or the other...

You've said you're going to use different masks for servers and users, but then the second part of your statement says that you're going to use the same /24 range for hosts and servers.

Which is it?

Your plan isn't going to work that way.

It largely depends on what you have on your network, how many users/servers/phones/other devices you have, and other factors besides, but as a very vague example I would do something like...

Base IP Range: /
That gives you -

You can then split it into smaller subnets, such as:

Users: / - that's 4094 hosts, or up-to 16 separate 254-host subnets

Servers: / - that's 254 servers

Voice: / - 254 phones

VPN: / - 254 VPN users

This is very rough, and might not suit your network, but it's displaying how you need to approach it at least.
We Need Your Input!

WatchGuard is currently running a beta program for our new macOS Host Sensor for our Threat Detection and Response service. We're looking for more macOS users to help provide insight and feedback to help us make the product even better. Please sign up for our beta program today!

Paul WagnerFriend To Robots and RocksAuthor Commented:

Sorry if I made my intentions confusing.... - 0.254 - "hosts" is meant to be the blades (physical server) that the VM's are housed on.... so my listing should have said: blades, VM servers, printers, etc.

Am I wrong in this thought?...
I want the core devices to be on a /17 subnet and the PC's on a /18 so there isn't a broadcast storm.

... or would just subnetting them out fix that? or just put servers and PC's in different VLANs?
Craig BeckCommented:
No problem :-)

VLANs and subnets are different things.  You need VLANs to separate broadcast domains, and subnets to make best use of IP addressing within your IP scheme.  Each VLAN would usually have a unique subnet.  It's physically possible to put more than one subnet in a VLAN, but it's not advisable.

So, you would typically need separate VLANs for:


I would put blade servers (the host machines for your VMs) in the management network for simplicity.

A /17 is a massive range.  That would give you 32766 hosts on that single subnet.

Look at my previous example.  Those subnet masks give you plenty of scope to adjust as required and are typical based upon some of the customers I've worked with in the past.
Paul WagnerFriend To Robots and RocksAuthor Commented:

I would put blade servers (the host machines for your VMs) in the management network for simplicity.
Management network.... Do you mean like on a management vlan or the same subnet as the vm servers?

Ok, so tell me if this jives with you (took your suggestions and personalized):

Base IP: /
Range: - / - servers, blades, router, etc. / - PC's / - Phones / - VPN
Craig BeckCommented:
Not bad, but / overlaps with the servers as it actually covers -

So you'd be able to use / for servers then for PCs.
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

Join & Write a Comment

Featured Post

Keep up with what's happening at Experts Exchange!

Sign up to receive Decoded, a new monthly digest with product updates, feature release info, continuing education opportunities, and more.

  • 3
  • 3
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now