change of subnetting

I have 220 devices with ip address in my network
and my network configuration is :

network 192.168.100.0
subnet 255.255.255.0

In this year i need to add 50 devices to this network

I have planned to pass to this configuration :

network 192.168.100.0
subnet 255.255.254.0

this change affects a loss of performance
or other negative consequences ?

exist other way ?

thanks

Cugelino wrote:
> I have 220 devices with ip address in my network
> and my network configuration is :
>
> network 192.168.100.0
> subnet 255.255.255.0
>
> In this year i need to add 50 devices to this network
>
> I have planned to pass to this configuration :
>
> network 192.168.100.0
> subnet 255.255.254.0
>
> this change affects a loss of performance
> or other negative consequences ?

should be fine.

> exist other way ?

If you're extending anyway then perhaps now is the time to ask yourself when
your new range will be filled - perhaps now is the time to make the network
address space even larger to anticipate future needs?

--
--
Rob Moir, MS MVP
Blog Site - http://www.robertmoir.com
Virtual PC 2004 FAQ - http://www.robertmoir.co.uk/win/VirtualPC2004FAQ.html
I'm always surprised at "professionals" who STILL have to be asked "Have you
checked (event viewer / syslog)".

"Robert Moir" <robspamtrap+(E-Mail Removed)> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Cugelino wrote:
>> I have 220 devices with ip address in my network
>> and my network configuration is :
>>
>> network 192.168.100.0
>> subnet 255.255.255.0
>>
>> In this year i need to add 50 devices to this network
>>
>> I have planned to pass to this configuration :
>>
>> network 192.168.100.0
>> subnet 255.255.254.0
>>
>> this change affects a loss of performance
>> or other negative consequences ?
>
> should be fine.
>
>> exist other way ?
>
> If you're extending anyway then perhaps now is the time to ask yourself
> when your new range will be filled - perhaps now is the time to make the
> network address space even larger to anticipate future needs?

you say to plan a subnet 255.255.252.0 if in the future
i suppose that the number of devices pass 510,
but there are substantial differences to take this subnet
instead 255.255.254.0

thanks

> --
> --
> Rob Moir, MS MVP
> Blog Site - http://www.robertmoir.com
> Virtual PC 2004 FAQ -
> http://www.robertmoir.co.uk/win/VirtualPC2004FAQ.html
> I'm always surprised at "professionals" who STILL have to be asked "Have
> you checked (event viewer / syslog)".
>

Cugelino wrote:

>
> you say to plan a subnet 255.255.252.0 if in the future
> i suppose that the number of devices pass 510,
> but there are substantial differences to take this subnet
> instead 255.255.254.0

Yeah. I wouldn't tell you how to run your network, just wanted to be sure
you had considered all the possibilities, to reduce the amount of changes
you make to your network as changes do tend to result in some disruption to
service.

On my own network, we actually use an address space of 10.1.0.0 /
255.255.0.0 and divide the components of the network up as follows
10.1.1.0 - servers
10.1.2.0 - print servers
10.1.3.0 - managed switches and routers
10.1.4.0 - OS X clients
10.1.5.0 to 10.1.15.255 - DHCP range for PC clients.

There isn't a right and wrong answer for this kind of thing, just a case of
design and what design you feel works best for you.

regards
rob

I am surprised that Phillip Windell hasn't jumped in here!

Reducing to less than a 24 bit mask to accommodate more than 250 devices
can be counter productive. You will be getting a fair proportion of the
bandwidth taken up by broadcasts, because they are all in the same broadcast
domain. Have you considered putting some devices into a second subnet and
routing between them?

Robert Moir wrote:
> Cugelino wrote:
>
>>
>> you say to plan a subnet 255.255.252.0 if in the future
>> i suppose that the number of devices pass 510,
>> but there are substantial differences to take this subnet
>> instead 255.255.254.0
>
> Yeah. I wouldn't tell you how to run your network, just wanted to be
> sure you had considered all the possibilities, to reduce the amount
> of changes you make to your network as changes do tend to result in
> some disruption to service.
>
> On my own network, we actually use an address space of 10.1.0.0 /
> 255.255.0.0 and divide the components of the network up as follows
> 10.1.1.0 - servers
> 10.1.2.0 - print servers
> 10.1.3.0 - managed switches and routers
> 10.1.4.0 - OS X clients
> 10.1.5.0 to 10.1.15.255 - DHCP range for PC clients.
>
> There isn't a right and wrong answer for this kind of thing, just a
> case of design and what design you feel works best for you.
>
> regards
> rob

Bill Grant wrote:
> I am surprised that Phillip Windell hasn't jumped in here!
>
> Reducing to less than a 24 bit mask to accommodate more than 250
> devices can be counter productive. You will be getting a fair
> proportion of the bandwidth taken up by broadcasts, because they are
> all in the same broadcast domain. Have you considered putting some
> devices into a second subnet and routing between them?

Not my decision. I'd have been thinking about VLANs to seperate out some
things along business lines, if it were.

I have to say though that it isn't impacting the network.