Yeah, the DHCP scope is set so all PC's and clients would be x.x.x.51
thru x.x.x.255 for each site.
The static IP's for each site are x.x.x.0 thru x.x.x.50 for 'support'
hardware. The subnet would be 255.255.255.0 for each site.
I believe my home Netgear router does about the same, it's at
192.168.1.1, but the first client DHCP address is 192.168.1.100.
It does no really matter whether the router is at 1 or 254, it's only
about keeping things consistent. :)
On Jul 22, 2008, at 4:59 PM, DHSinclair wrote:
Printed your reply for later reading.
Not sure you answered my question.................. :)
I do like the 10.x.x.x series, however.....
Can you go back and re-read my question?
Understand your outside "offices" sort of, for now.
I was just focusing on the x.x.x.0-253 business in the home range.
Still with you.
Best,
Duncan
At 16:48 07/22/2008 -0700, you wrote:
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.
--
JRS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please remove **X** to reply...
Facts do not cease to exist just
because they are ignored.
