Thanks Leland. In the past, I've run Coyote and BrazilFW Linux-based firewall routers. They ran spectacularly on a 120Mhz Pentium I with 1MB RAM, no hard drive, 2 NICs and a floppy drive. The problem is that they have to store their config on the floppy, the floppy sits for months and years in one position and the next time you need to reboot, you may get a "can't read floppy" error. Without the floppy, no cigar. And it's getting more and more difficult to find computers with floppy drives to write the boot disc with! But they performed like a big dog otherwise.
As for the Cisco $150 router I bought...it was Sunday afternoon in the big town of Tulsa, OK. Best Buy had zilch (nothing but wireless routers) and Staples had 1 of these Cisco routers in stock. It was a crime of necessity...I had 45 workstations waiting that could not access the Internet. Anything was better than nothing. My suspicions align with your statement that the Cisco router probably can't handle more than 254 connections....yet I was totally functional and happy with the above described Coyote Linux router setup...with the exception of the floppy drive boot problem. I did purchase a different Cisco router...the RV042...from Newegg. It has the same "limitation"....it won't let you specify a subnet larger than 256 devices no matter what private IP range you use. Before I flash or try to root a Cisco router, I would rather give another of the Linux-based firewall routers a shot. PFSense looks to be the most promising, and it is bootable from CD or flash drive. Anyway, I don't understand your comment about local ips (versus private ips). I've never heard of local ip addressing. Come to think of it, there are a lot of things I've never heard of. Mike -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: NF Network addressing (subnet Class A desired) From: lelandj <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: 11/6/2011 6:02 PM 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.
