Running out of IP's...what to do?

Good afternoon all! I was wondering if i could get some direction on what to
do in my current situation. We currently are running our network on
192.168.113.1-254 address range. Well the time has come where we are running
out of IP's and we recently purchased another company that will be bringing
in 20 new people that we will not have enough IPs for. So what do i do to
accomodate these new people? I am assuming we would set up another IP range
of lets say 192.168.114.1-254? but how would i go about doing this? would i
put another scope in the DHCP server? how would a client with a
192.168.114.xx address talk to the servers on the 192.168.113.xxx range? we
do not have routing and remote access on any servers, we use a sonicwall as
the gateway for the machines, so would the routes go in there? Im kinda lost
when it comes this kind of stuff!! so any help or direction would be greatly
appreciated!! thanks!

Hi Joe,
You simply need to add further subnets, and route between them.
You can connect two subnets with a router, with two ethernet interfaces. Or
you can also create VLAN's on a switch, each on a different subnet.
You can use just the one DHCP server. Add further scopes. Put an ip helper
address on the router or switch to forward DHCP requests to the server.
Hope that helps, ask if you need anything more,
Anthony -
http://www.airdesk.co.uk



"Joe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:2CB03AD0-F7DB-4A86-A856-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Good afternoon all! I was wondering if i could get some direction on what
> to
> do in my current situation. We currently are running our network on
> 192.168.113.1-254 address range. Well the time has come where we are
> running
> out of IP's and we recently purchased another company that will be
> bringing
> in 20 new people that we will not have enough IPs for. So what do i do to
> accomodate these new people? I am assuming we would set up another IP
> range
> of lets say 192.168.114.1-254? but how would i go about doing this?
> would i
> put another scope in the DHCP server? how would a client with a
> 192.168.114.xx address talk to the servers on the 192.168.113.xxx range?
> we
> do not have routing and remote access on any servers, we use a sonicwall
> as
> the gateway for the machines, so would the routes go in there? Im kinda
> lost
> when it comes this kind of stuff!! so any help or direction would be
> greatly
> appreciated!! thanks!

In message <#Fm0#(E-Mail Removed)> "Anthony"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hi Joe,
>You simply need to add further subnets, and route between them.
>You can connect two subnets with a router, with two ethernet interfaces. Or
>you can also create VLAN's on a switch, each on a different subnet.
>You can use just the one DHCP server. Add further scopes. Put an ip helper
>address on the router or switch to forward DHCP requests to the server.
>Hope that helps, ask if you need anything more,

Another option, there really isn't any practical reason to stick with a
/24, you could just as easily move up to a /23 or /22.

--
Americans couldn't be any more self-absorbed if they were made from equal
parts water and papertowel.
-- Dennis Miller

"DevilsPGD" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Another option, there really isn't any practical reason to stick with a
> /24, you could just as easily move up to a /23 or /22.

Ethernet segments need to stay below 250-300 hosts. The amount of
broadcasts that are normal for Ethernet begin to trash the efficiency of the
LAN when the number of Hosts is allowed to climb higher than that. There is
a lot more that goes on over the wire than things related to TCP/IP, in fact
what if you weren't even running TCP/IP?,..like maybe IPX/SPX,...the old
Netbios,..whatever. Anyway you never go lower then a /24bit IP mask over a
segment that is full of hosts (aka, not a Backbone).

The purpose of lower bit masks is to supernet segments together (a Backbone
between routers) to keep routing tables small and then you split the
segments back up into smaller pieces at another downstream router before the
LAN takes on Hosts. So in the end no segment containing Hosts is ever
larger than a 254 Host segment (/24).

So the best thing for this case is to add another IP Segment. Another
/24bit segment would bring them up to over 500 hosts total. Any
organization large enough to have over 250 hosts can afford the $$$ for a
simple LAN Router to create a new segment.


--
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.
-----------------------------------------------------
Understanding the ISA 2004 Access Rule Processing
http://www.isaserver.org/articles/IS...cessRules.html

Troubleshooting Client Authentication on Access Rules in ISA Server 2004
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...7/ts_rules.doc

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Partners
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/partners/default.asp

Microsoft ISA Server Partners: Partner Hardware Solutions
http://www.microsoft.com/forefront/e...epartners.mspx
-----------------------------------------------------

"Joe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:2CB03AD0-F7DB-4A86-A856-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Good afternoon all! I was wondering if i could get some direction on what to
> do in my current situation. We currently are running our network on
> 192.168.113.1-254 address range. Well the time has come where we are running
> out of IP's and we recently purchased another company that will be bringing
> in 20 new people that we will not have enough IPs for. So what do i do to
> accomodate these new people? I am assuming we would set up another IP range
> of lets say 192.168.114.1-254? but how would i go about doing this? would i
> put another scope in the DHCP server? how would a client with a
> 192.168.114.xx address talk to the servers on the 192.168.113.xxx range? we
> do not have routing and remote access on any servers, we use a sonicwall as
> the gateway for the machines, so would the routes go in there? Im kinda lost
> when it comes this kind of stuff!! so any help or direction would be greatly
> appreciated!! thanks!

You're not out of IPs, you just don't sufficiently understand networking. If
this is part of your job, I suggest getting a CCNA cert or at least study the
material.

In message <O#(E-Mail Removed)> "Phillip Windell"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"DevilsPGD" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> Another option, there really isn't any practical reason to stick with a
>> /24, you could just as easily move up to a /23 or /22.
>
>Ethernet segments need to stay below 250-300 hosts. The amount of
>broadcasts that are normal for Ethernet begin to trash the efficiency of the
>LAN when the number of Hosts is allowed to climb higher than that. There is
>a lot more that goes on over the wire than things related to TCP/IP, in fact
>what if you weren't even running TCP/IP?,..like maybe IPX/SPX,...the old
>Netbios,..whatever. Anyway you never go lower then a /24bit IP mask over a
>segment that is full of hosts (aka, not a Backbone).

Sure -- But he's adding 20 hosts, which means a maximum of 274, which is
well within tolerance for ethernet, especially for a Windows 2000 and up
network which can rely mainly on TCP/IP, DNS, and WINS and won't have to
resort to broadcasts.

Now sure, it's possible he's running IPX or NetBIOS or something, but if
so, subnetting won't really help, he'll need a lot more knowledge then
just a simple router sitting between two segments on different subnets.

If he grows much further, going above 300 hosts then sure, it's a good
time to re-engineer the network, but as a short term hack, a /23 won't
hurt anything (or a /16 for that matter, as long as your overall hosts
don't get too high)

--
Americans couldn't be any more self-absorbed if they were made from equal
parts water and papertowel.
-- Dennis Miller

"DevilsPGD" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Sure -- But he's adding 20 hosts, which means a maximum of 274, which is
> well within tolerance for ethernet, especially for a Windows 2000 and up
> network which can rely mainly on TCP/IP, DNS, and WINS and won't have to
> resort to broadcasts.

> If he grows much further, going above 300 hosts then sure, it's a good
> time to re-engineer the network, but as a short term hack, a /23 won't
> hurt anything (or a /16 for that matter, as long as your overall hosts
> don't get too high)

True, agreed.
But people often don't go back and fix their faulty methods once they get
moving in a certain direction. I'd rather see him start out in the right
direction while the network is still smaller and easier to deal with. Then
he won't have to worry about re-fixing it later when it gets bigger and more
complex. I really isn't that expensive to just do it right from the start
and be done with it.

--
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.
-----------------------------------------------------

In message <Oo6Z#(E-Mail Removed)> "Phillip Windell"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"DevilsPGD" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> Sure -- But he's adding 20 hosts, which means a maximum of 274, which is
>> well within tolerance for ethernet, especially for a Windows 2000 and up
>> network which can rely mainly on TCP/IP, DNS, and WINS and won't have to
>> resort to broadcasts.
>
>> If he grows much further, going above 300 hosts then sure, it's a good
>> time to re-engineer the network, but as a short term hack, a /23 won't
>> hurt anything (or a /16 for that matter, as long as your overall hosts
>> don't get too high)
>
>True, agreed.
>But people often don't go back and fix their faulty methods once they get
>moving in a certain direction. I'd rather see him start out in the right
>direction while the network is still smaller and easier to deal with. Then
>he won't have to worry about re-fixing it later when it gets bigger and more
>complex. I really isn't that expensive to just do it right from the start
>and be done with it.

Yeah, I guess that's true enough. So often I've been in a "get it done
now, and cheap" without time to do it right.

Of course, that's why I don't private consult anymore.

--
You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word.

"DevilsPGD" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> Of course, that's why I don't private consult anymore.

I never have yet,.... It scares me :-)
So far I have only worked as part of an IT staff "in house".

--
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.
-----------------------------------------------------
Understanding the ISA 2004 Access Rule Processing
http://www.isaserver.org/articles/IS...cessRules.html

Troubleshooting Client Authentication on Access Rules in ISA Server 2004
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...7/ts_rules.doc

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Partners
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/partners/default.asp

Microsoft ISA Server Partners: Partner Hardware Solutions
http://www.microsoft.com/forefront/e...epartners.mspx
-----------------------------------------------------

In message <(E-Mail Removed)> "Phillip Windell"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"DevilsPGD" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>
>> Of course, that's why I don't private consult anymore.
>
>I never have yet,.... It scares me :-)

That's the fun part.

>So far I have only worked as part of an IT staff "in house".

I do it when I'm bored... My main contract keeps me busy enough most of
the time, but sometimes it's nice to get out and watch some live action
Dilbert.

--
You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word.