Running out of LAN IP addresses

[Guest Aaron]

I currently manage a school that is growing and will run out of internal IP

addresses. We currently use 192.168.1.x and 255.255.255.0 for the network.

What would be the easiest way to allow for more available IP addresses on the

LAN?

[Guest RPK]

Re: Running out of LAN IP addresses

 

If they are purely for internal use (which they must be in that range), wny

not just change the subnet mask to 255.255.0.0.

 

You will then have enough addresses for a lifetime.

 

 

"Aaron" <Aaron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:21B0836B-0D0F-477B-8FFB-AC2E05AD3746@microsoft.com...

>I currently manage a school that is growing and will run out of internal IP

> addresses. We currently use 192.168.1.x and 255.255.255.0 for the

> network.

> What would be the easiest way to allow for more available IP addresses on

> the

> LAN?

>

[Guest Phillip Windell]

Re: Running out of LAN IP addresses

 

Because ethernet degrades after around 250-300 hosts on a single broadcast

domain (subnet). So you keep the /24 bit mask. If more hosts are needed

then you add a new IP segment.

 

--

Phillip Windell

http://www.wandtv.com

 

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,

or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.

-----------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

"RPK" <news@kco.co.uk> wrote in message

news:eooj3391IHA.5560@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> If they are purely for internal use (which they must be in that range),

> wny not just change the subnet mask to 255.255.0.0.

>

> You will then have enough addresses for a lifetime.

>

>

> "Aaron" <Aaron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:21B0836B-0D0F-477B-8FFB-AC2E05AD3746@microsoft.com...

>>I currently manage a school that is growing and will run out of internal

>>IP

>> addresses. We currently use 192.168.1.x and 255.255.255.0 for the

>> network.

>> What would be the easiest way to allow for more available IP addresses on

>> the

>> LAN?

>>

>

>

[Guest Meinolf Weber]

Re: Running out of LAN IP addresses

 

Hello Phillip,

 

Do you have some links about the degrading of the ethernet? We use /28 bit

in our network, without any problems.

 

Best regards

 

Meinolf Weber

Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers

no rights.

** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups

** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm

> Because ethernet degrades after around 250-300 hosts on a single

> broadcast domain (subnet). So you keep the /24 bit mask. If more

> hosts are needed then you add a new IP segment.

>

> The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or

> Microsoft, or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.

> -----------------------------------------------------

>

> "RPK" <news@kco.co.uk> wrote in message

> news:eooj3391IHA.5560@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>

>> If they are purely for internal use (which they must be in that

>> range), wny not just change the subnet mask to 255.255.0.0.

>>

>> You will then have enough addresses for a lifetime.

>>

>> "Aaron" <Aaron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

>> news:21B0836B-0D0F-477B-8FFB-AC2E05AD3746@microsoft.com...

>>

>>> I currently manage a school that is growing and will run out of

>>> internal

>>> IP

>>> addresses. We currently use 192.168.1.x and 255.255.255.0 for the

>>> network.

>>> What would be the easiest way to allow for more available IP

>>> addresses on

>>> the

>>> LAN?

[Guest Aaron]

Re: Running out of LAN IP addresses

 

What if I change the subnet mask to 255.255.254.0? That would give me 510

hosts, correct? Usable would be 192.168.1.1 - 192.168.2.254?

 

"Meinolf Weber" wrote:

> Hello Phillip,

>

> Do you have some links about the degrading of the ethernet? We use /28 bit

> in our network, without any problems.

>

> Best regards

>

> Meinolf Weber

> Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers

> no rights.

> ** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups

> ** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm

>

> > Because ethernet degrades after around 250-300 hosts on a single

> > broadcast domain (subnet). So you keep the /24 bit mask. If more

> > hosts are needed then you add a new IP segment.

> >

> > The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or

> > Microsoft, or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.

> > -----------------------------------------------------

> >

> > "RPK" <news@kco.co.uk> wrote in message

> > news:eooj3391IHA.5560@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> >

> >> If they are purely for internal use (which they must be in that

> >> range), wny not just change the subnet mask to 255.255.0.0.

> >>

> >> You will then have enough addresses for a lifetime.

> >>

> >> "Aaron" <Aaron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> >> news:21B0836B-0D0F-477B-8FFB-AC2E05AD3746@microsoft.com...

> >>

> >>> I currently manage a school that is growing and will run out of

> >>> internal

> >>> IP

> >>> addresses. We currently use 192.168.1.x and 255.255.255.0 for the

> >>> network.

> >>> What would be the easiest way to allow for more available IP

> >>> addresses on

> >>> the

> >>> LAN?

>

>

>

[Guest Phillip Windell]

Re: Running out of LAN IP addresses

 

If it is a gigabit LAN the degredation probably isn't even perceived

"humanly" if the actual hosts are only a small amout higher than 300, but

I'm sure it could be measured with equipment. If anything, the number of

broadcast created by that number of hosts has got to mean something, and the

LAN would have to perform be better if they were reduced. Anyway I like to

stay within recommendations and standards rather than doing something just

because I can get away with it,..especially when I am making recommendations

to others.

 

I wish I had a link or a reference but I don't. It was something mentioned

"along the way" within the Cisco Textbook material they use for the CCNA

exams in the Colleges that have those courses. I am on the IT Advisory

Committee for the local college in my area and so I have contact with those

instructors. I recently asked one if the 250-300 host recommended limit was

still the case to make sure I wasn't day dreaming or something back when I

went through the classes. He said that it was true but he didn't have any

exact refernces or quotes to give me. But if I ever find any, I'll be sure

to keep track of them. I still have those textbooks, but it seems to be a

needle in the hay stack to find the quote.

 

--

Phillip Windell

http://www.wandtv.com

 

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,

or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.

-----------------------------------------------------

 

 

"Meinolf Weber" <meiweb(nospam)@gmx.de> wrote in message

news:ff16fb66a22f58caa688761fbad0@msnews.microsoft.com...

> Hello Phillip,

>

> Do you have some links about the degrading of the ethernet? We use /28 bit

> in our network, without any problems.

>

> Best regards

>

> Meinolf Weber

> Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and

> confers no rights.

> ** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups

> ** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm

>

>> Because ethernet degrades after around 250-300 hosts on a single

>> broadcast domain (subnet). So you keep the /24 bit mask. If more

>> hosts are needed then you add a new IP segment.

>>

>> The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or

>> Microsoft, or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.

>> -----------------------------------------------------

>>

>> "RPK" <news@kco.co.uk> wrote in message

>> news:eooj3391IHA.5560@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>

>>> If they are purely for internal use (which they must be in that

>>> range), wny not just change the subnet mask to 255.255.0.0.

>>>

>>> You will then have enough addresses for a lifetime.

>>>

>>> "Aaron" <Aaron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

>>> news:21B0836B-0D0F-477B-8FFB-AC2E05AD3746@microsoft.com...

>>>

>>>> I currently manage a school that is growing and will run out of

>>>> internal

>>>> IP

>>>> addresses. We currently use 192.168.1.x and 255.255.255.0 for the

>>>> network.

>>>> What would be the easiest way to allow for more available IP

>>>> addresses on

>>>> the

>>>> LAN?

>

>

[Guest Phillip Windell]

Re: Running out of LAN IP addresses

 

"Aaron" <Aaron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:36881A22-EAB3-45C4-AC58-019385E6E1E5@microsoft.com...

> What if I change the subnet mask to 255.255.254.0? That would give me 510

> hosts, correct? Usable would be 192.168.1.1 - 192.168.2.254?

 

It would,...but I wouldn't.

 

You use lower bit masks in routing tables to Supernet subnets together over

backbones where there are multiple consecutive subnet furthers down the

line. That is how the whole Internet works between the differnet "levels"

of Internet Providers and also how large Private Corporations with 1000's of

machines and many subnets route their LAN/WAN/MAN traffic.

 

--

Phillip Windell

http://www.wandtv.com

 

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,

or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.

-----------------------------------------------------