Anyone want to take a shot at helping me understand Network IP addressing? Brief synopsis: Need to have more than 256 devices on one subnet
Background: I have always worked with fairly small networks...256 device addresses has always seemed more than sufficient, so I've always used the class C private subnet address range of 192.168.0.X, subnet mask of 255.255.255.0 and, of course, the gateway address was always in that range some place...192.168.0.1 or 192.168.0.254 or somewhere in between. I have a client that, due to expansion of multiple physical offices and sharing of data files, needs more than 256 devices on their subnet. That means either using a Class B or Class A subnet. For simplicity, I decided to go Class A. So, after a lot of reading and testing and setting up some test networks, I settled on using a private subnet of 10.0.X.X, subnet mask of 255.255.0.0, and the gateway at 10.0.0.1. Set everything up, had it all working....a couple of dozen IP addressed printers, DHCP address ranges for a few WAP devices to use, each computer assigned a static ip in the 10.0.X.X range as described above (subnet mask 255.255.0.0)...all is well. As luck would have it, an older firewall router device crapped out when I rebooted it "one too many times" so I had to rush out on a Sunday and get what was available...a Cisco wired router (the one sold at Staples) model RVS4000RTL. When setting up the new router, I ran into what seems to be a "Cisco-unique-feature"....at least I hope. I was able to set the LAN port to 10.0.0.1, but they only allow the selection of the netmask from a drop-down list....and 255.255.0.0. was not available...the closest was...255.255.255.0. Which means that I'm now required to use 255.255.255.0 as the subnet mask on all devices on the subnet, and that means I'm back to the 256 device maximum! Question: Is this just a quirk of the Cisco products....they only want to "load" their router with up to 256 users...or is it a network subclassing issue that I'm not smart enough to recognize, understand, and appreciate? In other words, is the Cisco limitation the problem, or am I not understanding the issue? My goal, again, is to allow a subnet that is able to communicate between more than 256 IP addresses. Any network guru's (or anyone who grok's this) care to enlighten my dim brain? Thanks in advance for any and all feedback. Mike Copeland _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
