Lots of good stuff here guys.... The answer to the multinational company problem is to reallocate within the existing DHCP pool that over laps. Works 90% of the time.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Simón Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Andrew Latham > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Simon, I agree with you on the stupid manufacturers.... However I am >> a consultant that is asked to fix the problem. If there is a >> Microsoft Windows 3.1 system powering the patty packing system at a >> meat packaging plant and the client wants it networked, I network it. >> When a machine like a industrial packager or even an AS400 has been in >> use for 15+ years replacing it is never an option as it has paid for >> its self many times over. > > I'd be more compelled by the "It works well, and it's big in a pain in > the ass to move." argument, myself, but yeah I understand it's not > really an option to replace such a thing. > > *shrug* I must admit, I'm not cognizant of any of the issues involved > with something like that, and thankfully so; good thing meat packaging > plants have people like you, I guess. > >> On the netmask issue. >> >> If you need a 16bit netmask the 192.168 network is for that. > > Hm. Most consumer routers I've seen are set up for the 192.168.1.0/24 > subnet, IIRC. Another non-spec standard? > >> If you >> need a 12bit address (~1million host) then the 172.16-31 network is >> there for that. If you need 16+ million host you need to subnet. > > I don't suppose there's an RFC reserved range for "use as needed"? > >> Here is where an issue arises and causes all kinds of fun. Lets >> imagine a multinational company that is using 192.168.0.0/16, >> 172.16.0.0/12, and 10.0.0.0/8 on VLANs at 16 locations international. >> Because they selected such large networks the address pools where >> assigned to different areas and even statically assigned further. >> >> A few years go by.... >> >> They want to setup a MPLS network to interconnect and bridge the >> sites. They call you. What are you going to do? > > Apparently, make a _ton_ of money off them. > > Or, more realistically, refer them to you so _you_ can make a _ton_ of > money off them. ;-) > >> Imagine a public school that has a simple network of 172.16.0.0/20 and >> they need to integrate into a statewide network. I am sure you can >> write the routing information for that on a piece of paper. A well >> defined network is easy to route, manage, and understand. > > Our network is well-defined, it's just well-defined outside of RFC > spec, apparently, because we use the 10.0.0.0/8 range and it's not all > crammed together in one humongous subnet. > > I thought you said the 172.16-32.*.* range was meant for 12 bit subnets, > though. > > I'm a little confused, now; how would splitting that range into 20 bit > subnets be any different than us splitting the 10.0.0.0/8 range into a > bunch of smaller 16 and 24 bit subnets? > >> I hope that all the FWLUG folks can look at the networks they manage >> and answer what the 5 and 10 year plan is. What happens if the >> company/school is absorbed into a larger group? How is static >> addressing handled? Why is their only one DNS server? Why have I not >> played with http://ebox-platform.com/ before... > > Not likely in the least. As little as possible; I try to assign > "static" IPs via DHCP as much as possible. There's one in each subnet > that has workstations. Because I've never heard of it. > >> Now off to http://www.boswars.org/ for that afternoon battle.... > > Have fun! > > _______________________________________________ > Fwlug mailing list > [email protected] > http://fortwaynelug.org/mailman/listinfo/fwlug_fortwaynelug.org > -- Andrew "lathama" Latham TuxTone Inc. http://TuxTone.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Fwlug mailing list [email protected] http://fortwaynelug.org/mailman/listinfo/fwlug_fortwaynelug.org
