Can you take the router back, that you brought from Staples, and exchange it for something more suitable to your needs? I noticed the router you purchased lists for about $150.00.
A router is a computer specialized for networking, and like most computers, the more you pay the more capable the equipment. For example, I brought a NETGEAR SRXN3205-100NAS Wireless-N VPN Firewall LAN-to-WAN: 60 Mbps Connections: 20,000 concurrent sessions VPN throughput: 20 Mbps. from Newegg for about $259.99, which has worked great for me, but I can't recommend it; because, Netgear does not provide VPN client software for any OS other than windows. Cisco on the other hand provide it VPN client software for Windows, Linux, Unix, and Mac. Anyway, with a network of more than 256 devices connecting to a router, the Cisco RVS4000RTL might not be strong enough to provide adequate performance, depending the devices you're connecting to it. For example, security cameras placed in a busy locations sending video streams and emails of various event can consume plenty of router resources. LOL Otherwise you might consider buying another RVS4000RTL and connecting the two router together. Each router could have a 256 port switch for its network devices; see below link. http://forums.techguy.org/networking/595288-connecting-two-networks.html The below router looks like it might be fast enough to handle a good load, but you would need to dig deeper to be sure its would handle class A and B networks. You might do a search on newegg using "Cisco Router" to get some idea of what might work best for you. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833150128 One other option is flashing your router to run third party software. First you would need to determine if your router was compatible with the third party software, but this option carries some risk. I noticed you are running private ips. Have you considered running local ips. http://www.vicomsoft.com/glossary/ip-addresses/ Regards, LelandJ NETGEAR SRXN3205-100NAS Wireless-N VPN Firewall LAN-to-WAN: 60 Mbps Connections: 20,000 concurrent sessions VPN throughput: 20 Mbps . On 11/06/2011 03:00 PM, Mike Copeland wrote: > 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 > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ 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.
