Basic networking question: Two network ranges

My LAN is using the 192.168.0.x network with mask 255.255.255.0
I must set another private network so as to have to network ranges.

- Which private range can I use?
- Should I change existing client configuration?
- What should I change in my Windows 2003 servers? Install any service?
- Should I install a router in my network, or standard switches will to the
job?

Thanks for your time.

I am not sure I understand the issue. If you are out of the IP, you may use
class B, for example 182.16.0.0/16. If you want to have two networks say
VLAN 1 and 2, you can have another class C such as 192.168.1.0/24.

If you want to use class B, you make change on the DHCP only. If you want to
use VLAN you must do them on a router or switch.

--
Bob Lin, MS-MVP, MCSE & CNE
Networking, Internet, Routing, VPN Troubleshooting on
http://www.ChicagoTech.net
How to Setup Windows, Network, VPN & Remote Access on
http://www.HowToNetworking.com
"Gaspar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> My LAN is using the 192.168.0.x network with mask 255.255.255.0
> I must set another private network so as to have to network ranges.
>
> - Which private range can I use?
> - Should I change existing client configuration?
> - What should I change in my Windows 2003 servers? Install any service?
> - Should I install a router in my network, or standard switches will to
> the job?
>
> Thanks for your time.
>

"Gaspar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> My LAN is using the 192.168.0.x network with mask 255.255.255.0
> I must set another private network so as to have to network ranges.

Why? It isn't very likely that you *have* to. You need to explain why.
Your reasons for thinking you need to may be incorrect.

> - Which private range can I use?

Any within the RFC Private Ranges. Pick one. Avoid overused lower numbers
on the network side of the address. Too late for your current segment with
"0".

> - Should I change existing client configuration?

What is a "client configuration"? I don't know what you are expecting.

> - What should I change in my Windows 2003 servers?

What whould you expect to change?

> Install any service?

No.

> - Should I install a router in my network,

Yes. A "real" router,...not a home-user broadband NAT Firewall that you find
in stores that are incorrectly called "routers". A Layer3 Switch can be
used as well,...they are simply a Layer2 Switch and a Layer3 Router both
built into the same piece of hardware.

> or standard switches will to the job?

No.


--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

Let me start again.
I'm getting out of IP addresses in the 192.168.0.x /255.255.255.0 network.
What should I do to get more IP addresses?

I'm using Windows 2003 server, Windows XP, and DHCP/DNS.
Thanks again.


"Phillip Windell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Gaspar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> My LAN is using the 192.168.0.x network with mask 255.255.255.0
>> I must set another private network so as to have to network ranges.
>
> Why? It isn't very likely that you *have* to. You need to explain why.
> Your reasons for thinking you need to may be incorrect.
>
>> - Which private range can I use?
>
> Any within the RFC Private Ranges. Pick one. Avoid overused lower
> numbers on the network side of the address. Too late for your current
> segment with "0".
>
>> - Should I change existing client configuration?
>
> What is a "client configuration"? I don't know what you are expecting.
>
>> - What should I change in my Windows 2003 servers?
>
> What whould you expect to change?
>
>> Install any service?
>
> No.

For example:



>
>> - Should I install a router in my network,
>
> Yes. A "real" router,...not a home-user broadband NAT Firewall that you
> find in stores that are incorrectly called "routers". A Layer3 Switch can
> be used as well,...they are simply a Layer2 Switch and a Layer3 Router
> both built into the same piece of hardware.
>
>> or standard switches will to the job?
>
> No.
>
>
> --
> Phillip Windell
> www.wandtv.com
>
> The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or
> Microsoft,
> or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>

Ok. Yes, then if you are getting close to running out of addresses, then
yes, adding a new segment as described is the good way to go.

You might even be able to create two new segments,...with higher numbers on
the network side (instead of "0" or "1") and be able to migrate away from
the 192.168.0 and retire that one. It would be beneficial if you ever do a
VPN to some other company's network who may be using one of the heavily
overused numbers like "0" or "1". The VPN is a big problem if both
companies are using the same IP range.

Once the new segment is created you would configure the LAN Router to
forward DHCP Queries to the DHCP Server. On the DHCP Server you would
create a new standard Scope for the new IP Segment (no Sperscopes!).

Then for routing, the LAN Router becomes the new Default Gateway for
*everything* except the Firewall Device which would continue to keep the one
it now uses. Then the Firewall Device becomes the Default Gateway of the
LAN Router.

The Firewall Device will need a Static Route added that tells it to use the
LAN Router as the "path" to all the LAN's segments.


--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

"Gaspar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Let me start again.
> I'm getting out of IP addresses in the 192.168.0.x /255.255.255.0 network.
> What should I do to get more IP addresses?
>
> I'm using Windows 2003 server, Windows XP, and DHCP/DNS.
> Thanks again.
>
>
> "Phillip Windell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> "Gaspar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> My LAN is using the 192.168.0.x network with mask 255.255.255.0
>>> I must set another private network so as to have to network ranges.
>>
>> Why? It isn't very likely that you *have* to. You need to explain why.
>> Your reasons for thinking you need to may be incorrect.
>>
>>> - Which private range can I use?
>>
>> Any within the RFC Private Ranges. Pick one. Avoid overused lower
>> numbers on the network side of the address. Too late for your current
>> segment with "0".
>>
>>> - Should I change existing client configuration?
>>
>> What is a "client configuration"? I don't know what you are expecting.
>>
>>> - What should I change in my Windows 2003 servers?
>>
>> What whould you expect to change?
>>
>>> Install any service?
>>
>> No.
>
> For example:
>
>
>
>>
>>> - Should I install a router in my network,
>>
>> Yes. A "real" router,...not a home-user broadband NAT Firewall that you
>> find in stores that are incorrectly called "routers". A Layer3 Switch
>> can be used as well,...they are simply a Layer2 Switch and a Layer3
>> Router both built into the same piece of hardware.
>>
>>> or standard switches will to the job?
>>
>> No.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Phillip Windell
>> www.wandtv.com
>>
>> The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or
>> Microsoft,
>> or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>

Thanks Phillips for your detailed explanation.
Your suggestion to stop using the 192.168.0.x network is for the VPN
compatibility?
So, for example, two appropiate segments will be 192.168.200.x and
192.168.0.201.x
What about using single segment with a "bigger" mask, like 192.168.x.x?

Thanks again


"Phillip Windell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Ok. Yes, then if you are getting close to running out of addresses, then
> yes, adding a new segment as described is the good way to go.
>
> You might even be able to create two new segments,...with higher numbers
> on the network side (instead of "0" or "1") and be able to migrate away
> from the 192.168.0 and retire that one. It would be beneficial if you
> ever do a VPN to some other company's network who may be using one of the
> heavily overused numbers like "0" or "1". The VPN is a big problem if
> both companies are using the same IP range.
>
> Once the new segment is created you would configure the LAN Router to
> forward DHCP Queries to the DHCP Server. On the DHCP Server you would
> create a new standard Scope for the new IP Segment (no Sperscopes!).
>
> Then for routing, the LAN Router becomes the new Default Gateway for
> *everything* except the Firewall Device which would continue to keep the
> one it now uses. Then the Firewall Device becomes the Default Gateway of
> the LAN Router.
>
> The Firewall Device will need a Static Route added that tells it to use
> the LAN Router as the "path" to all the LAN's segments.
>
>
> --
> Phillip Windell
> www.wandtv.com
>
> The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or
> Microsoft,
> or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> "Gaspar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Let me start again.
>> I'm getting out of IP addresses in the 192.168.0.x /255.255.255.0
>> network.
>> What should I do to get more IP addresses?
>>
>> I'm using Windows 2003 server, Windows XP, and DHCP/DNS.
>> Thanks again.
>>
>>
>> "Phillip Windell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>> "Gaspar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> My LAN is using the 192.168.0.x network with mask 255.255.255.0
>>>> I must set another private network so as to have to network ranges.
>>>
>>> Why? It isn't very likely that you *have* to. You need to explain why.
>>> Your reasons for thinking you need to may be incorrect.
>>>
>>>> - Which private range can I use?
>>>
>>> Any within the RFC Private Ranges. Pick one. Avoid overused lower
>>> numbers on the network side of the address. Too late for your current
>>> segment with "0".
>>>
>>>> - Should I change existing client configuration?
>>>
>>> What is a "client configuration"? I don't know what you are expecting.
>>>
>>>> - What should I change in my Windows 2003 servers?
>>>
>>> What whould you expect to change?
>>>
>>>> Install any service?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> - Should I install a router in my network,
>>>
>>> Yes. A "real" router,...not a home-user broadband NAT Firewall that you
>>> find in stores that are incorrectly called "routers". A Layer3 Switch
>>> can be used as well,...they are simply a Layer2 Switch and a Layer3
>>> Router both built into the same piece of hardware.
>>>
>>>> or standard switches will to the job?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Phillip Windell
>>> www.wandtv.com
>>>
>>> The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or
>>> Microsoft,
>>> or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
>>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"Gaspar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks Phillips for your detailed explanation.
> Your suggestion to stop using the 192.168.0.x network is for the VPN
> compatibility?

For VPN or any other type of private interactivity between two networks.
Two networks have a difficult time working togther (like two compnaies
working together for something) if they are the same IP Range. It doesn't
make it impossible, but it does make it more difficult,..it is just best to
try to avoid it.

> So, for example, two appropiate segments will be 192.168.200.x and
> 192.168.0.201.x

Correct.
It is still a gamble,... the "other guy" could be thinking the same as you
and pick the same numbers,...but the chances are less.

> What about using single segment with a "bigger" mask, like 192.168.x.x?

No.
1. That won't remove the overlaping addresses
2. Ethernet degrades after around 250-300 hosts. Keep the /24 bit mask
(255.255.255.0) which gives you 254 hosts which is the perfect size to work
with. If you need more hosts, then have more "254-host" segments. With
today's Layer3 Switches (Router/Switch combination) it is easier to do than
it used to be in the past.

--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

Thanks a lot!

"Phillip Windell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Gaspar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Thanks Phillips for your detailed explanation.
>> Your suggestion to stop using the 192.168.0.x network is for the VPN
>> compatibility?
>
> For VPN or any other type of private interactivity between two networks.
> Two networks have a difficult time working togther (like two compnaies
> working together for something) if they are the same IP Range. It doesn't
> make it impossible, but it does make it more difficult,..it is just best
> to try to avoid it.
>
>> So, for example, two appropiate segments will be 192.168.200.x and
>> 192.168.0.201.x
>
> Correct.
> It is still a gamble,... the "other guy" could be thinking the same as you
> and pick the same numbers,...but the chances are less.
>
>> What about using single segment with a "bigger" mask, like 192.168.x.x?
>
> No.
> 1. That won't remove the overlaping addresses
> 2. Ethernet degrades after around 250-300 hosts. Keep the /24 bit mask
> (255.255.255.0) which gives you 254 hosts which is the perfect size to
> work with. If you need more hosts, then have more "254-host" segments.
> With today's Layer3 Switches (Router/Switch combination) it is easier to
> do than it used to be in the past.
>
> --
> Phillip Windell
> www.wandtv.com
>
> The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or
> Microsoft,
> or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>