Re: [pfSense-discussion] extending LAN private network

2009-04-03 Thread Aarno Aukia
Yes, altough you could move to 192.168.0.0/23 first, already doubling the
number of usable addresses...

-Aarno

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 13:25, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:


 It seems I'll be running out of LAN addresses on the local 192.168.0.0/24soon.
 Is boosting it as easy as moving to 192.168.0.0/16 on the LAN tab, and
 adjusting
 the netmask for all the hosts? Or am I overlooking something?

 --
 Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org
 __
 ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: discussion-unsubscr...@pfsense.com
 For additional commands, e-mail: discussion-h...@pfsense.com

 Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org




-- 
Aarno Aukia
ETH Zurich / Atrila GmbH
+41764000464


RE: [pfSense-discussion] extending LAN private network

2009-04-03 Thread Greg Hennessy
What he said :-).

Using a /16 is guaranteed to come back and bite you in the posterior at some 
later stage.  Go to a /22 if you're worried about running out.


Greg



From: Aarno Aukia [aarnoau...@gmail.com]
Sent: 03 April 2009 13:33
To: discussion@pfsense.com; eu...@leitl.org
Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] extending LAN private network

Yes, altough you could move to 192.168.0.0/23http://192.168.0.0/23 first, 
already doubling the number of usable addresses...

-Aarno

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 13:25, Eugen Leitl 
eu...@leitl.orgmailto:eu...@leitl.org wrote:

It seems I'll be running out of LAN addresses on the local 
192.168.0.0/24http://192.168.0.0/24 soon.
Is boosting it as easy as moving to 192.168.0.0/16http://192.168.0.0/16 on 
the LAN tab, and adjusting
the netmask for all the hosts? Or am I overlooking something?

--
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
discussion-unsubscr...@pfsense.commailto:discussion-unsubscr...@pfsense.com
For additional commands, e-mail: 
discussion-h...@pfsense.commailto:discussion-h...@pfsense.com

Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org




--
Aarno Aukia
ETH Zurich / Atrila GmbH
+41764000464


Re: [pfSense-discussion] extending LAN private network

2009-04-03 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 01:52:46PM +0100, Greg Hennessy wrote:
 
What he said :-).
 
 
 
Using a /16 is guaranteed to come back and bite you in the posterior

I can use 192.168.x.0 with x coding for specific things, like
storeys, or admin addresses.

at some later stage.  Go to a /22 if you're worried about running out.

What can be some of the problems with a private /16 address space?

-- 
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discussion-unsubscr...@pfsense.com
For additional commands, e-mail: discussion-h...@pfsense.com

Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org



Re: [pfSense-discussion] extending LAN private network

2009-04-03 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 03:48:33PM +0100, Paul Mansfield wrote:
 
 use vlans, a managed switch, and use 192.168.x.0/24 for each vlan. for
 bonus points, use NAC and dynamic vlans to allow only approved devices
 and put them on the right network.

I like this suggestion. Looks like the way to go.
 
 (we do something similar, vlan N is 192.168.N/24. it's bad practise to
 use vlan1 so we start at 2)

-- 
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discussion-unsubscr...@pfsense.com
For additional commands, e-mail: discussion-h...@pfsense.com

Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org



Re: [pfSense-discussion] extending LAN private network

2009-04-03 Thread Chris Buechler
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 3:34 PM, David Rees dree...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Paul Mansfield
 it-admin-pfse...@taptu.com wrote:
 use vlans, a managed switch, and use 192.168.x.0/24 for each vlan. for
 bonus points, use NAC and dynamic vlans to allow only approved devices
 and put them on the right network.

 (we do something similar, vlan N is 192.168.N/24. it's bad practise to
 use vlan1 so we start at 2)

 I'm fairly new to VLANs - why is it bad practice to use vlan1?


Security reasons. Vulnerable to VLAN hopping/dropping in some circumstances.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discussion-unsubscr...@pfsense.com
For additional commands, e-mail: discussion-h...@pfsense.com

Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org



Re: [pfSense-discussion] extending LAN private network

2009-04-03 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 12:34:26PM -0700, David Rees wrote:
  (we do something similar, vlan N is 192.168.N/24. it's bad practise to
  use vlan1 so we start at 2)
 
 I'm fairly new to VLANs - why is it bad practice to use vlan1?

Because VLAN ID 1 is the default VLAN?

-- 
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discussion-unsubscr...@pfsense.com
For additional commands, e-mail: discussion-h...@pfsense.com

Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org



RE: [pfSense-discussion] extending LAN private network

2009-04-03 Thread Greg Hennessy
Vlan 1 is usually the default and management VLAN. 

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps708/products_white_paper09186a008013159f.shtml#wp39009

explains it in a Cisco context. 

-Original Message-
From: David Rees [mailto:dree...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 03 April 2009 20:34
To: discussion@pfsense.com
Cc: eu...@leitl.org
Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] extending LAN private network

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Paul Mansfield
it-admin-pfse...@taptu.com wrote:
 use vlans, a managed switch, and use 192.168.x.0/24 for each vlan. for
 bonus points, use NAC and dynamic vlans to allow only approved devices
 and put them on the right network.

 (we do something similar, vlan N is 192.168.N/24. it's bad practise to
 use vlan1 so we start at 2)

I'm fairly new to VLANs - why is it bad practice to use vlan1?

-Dave

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discussion-unsubscr...@pfsense.com
For additional commands, e-mail: discussion-h...@pfsense.com

Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discussion-unsubscr...@pfsense.com
For additional commands, e-mail: discussion-h...@pfsense.com

Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org



Re: [pfSense-discussion] extending LAN private network

2009-04-03 Thread Daniele Guazzoni
On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 12:34 -0700, David Rees wrote:
 I'm fairly new to VLANs - why is it bad practice to use vlan1?
 
 -Dave

Especially in a Cisco environment VLAN-1 is, beside being the default
VLAN, also used by several management protocols like CDP, VTP, VQP, ...
Some of them carries network sensitive information which you don't
really want to expose to everybody.
Try to keep your VLAN-1 on it own but this is not always possible.
For instance old Cisco Wireless AP (or should I better say Aironet ?)
force you to use VLAN-1 as management...


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailGate, and is
believed to be clean.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discussion-unsubscr...@pfsense.com
For additional commands, e-mail: discussion-h...@pfsense.com

Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org