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?

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?
>

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
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?
>>
>
>

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?

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?
>
>
>

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
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?
>
>

"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
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.
-----------------------------------------------------