Thanks - hadn't thought of that. I guess I would setup my Sonicwall so
that it knew both /24's were "local" - seems like that would really
increase the work-load on the router/sonicwall though wouldn't it? All
of a sudden any packets for the new /24 would have to bounce off the
router and back onto the network as opposed to the switches handling
them right? Or, am I off on picturing how that would work. It's hard
to visualize packet movement since I've not set something up like that
before.
Seems like moving to a /16 still seems like the best option That would
go from a 192.168.1.0 to a 192.168.0.0 setup. Maybe I'm not seeing
your suggestion clearly.
Nathan
On Dec 26, 6:33 pm, "Bill Grant" <not.available@online> wrote:
> If you are doing a rework of your network, why not simply create a
> second /24 subnet an route between them? That way you do not ned to change
> anything in the existing network or the existing DHCP scope. Just set up a
> new scope for the new subnet.
>
> <nate.i...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3cac5b04-ca60-4c9f-9e46-(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> >I currently have a 192.168.1.x/24 network that is saturated. While I'm
> > reworking the network architecture, I think I need to change to a 16
> > bit netmask. From the research that I've done, it looks pretty
> > straight-forward to change a server's (running AD) IP address, so that
> > gives me hope it's not too hard. I plan on keeping the server IP the
> > same, but changing the netmask from 255.255.255.0 to 255.255.0.0.
>
> > Any words of caution? I know I'll have to "update" this in my DHCP
> > range, on all printers/devices and so on.
>
> > Nathan
|
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
