Yeah, I've got sites with only 10 PC's and 10 users and they still
give 'em the a whole 256 address block. They don't care because it's
all 10 dot inside and nat'ed.
So one office is 10.1.1.0-255, the next is 10.1.2.0-255, the next
10.1.3.0-255, and so on.
Switches and routers are all x.x.x.0-10, servers x.x.x.11-20, printers
x.x.x.21-35, etc. Spare static IP's for growth are x.x.x.36-50, and
user DHCP starts at x.x.x.51 and up.
No reason to the scheme other than just to standardize all the sites a
wee bit. :)
On Jul 22, 2008, at 3:58 PM, DHSinclair wrote:
Thanks John,
So, if I read this correct, all clients are >a.b.c.51?
But, I do see that you do limit your routers to the bottom of the
range.
Like I asked. No biggie. I am getting ready to do battle with ATT
about
their local service......
Wondering. No change planned ATM.
Thanks,
Duncan
At 15:41 07/22/2008 -0700, you wrote:
No.. At my last job they had all the routers at x.x.x.254, and now
we have them all at x.x.x.1. Just standards and differing
numbering schemes. :) We reserve the first 50 addies for routers,
switches, printers, servers etc, and start DHCP addressing for each
site at x.x.x.51.. -- JRS [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please remove
**X** to reply... Facts do not cease to exist just because they are
ignored. ----- Original Message ---- From: DHSinclair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: Hardware Group <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday,
July 22, 2008 3:17:17 PM Subject: [H] router/gateway address? Is
there any efficiency in changing my router/gateway address from:
x:x:1:253 to an address of: x:x:1:1 ?????? Thanks, Duncan
--
JRS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please remove **X** to reply...
Facts do not cease to exist just
because they are ignored.
