superscope... so close...

I have added a superscope to help me with my IP addresses disappearing. I
put a new childscope inside the superscope like all the articles say. I
assigned a reservation in the new childscope just to see if the DHCP server
would act right. All is well and it assigned the proper DNS, Gateway and IP
address on the new network. I assigned the gateway as 192.168.47.254 then
added that ip address to the interface on my router. I can ping
192.168.47.254 and I can access resources on my old network
(192.168.48.0/24) but for some reason I can't get to the internet. When I
tracert microsoft.com it resolves but shows my first hop as 192.168.48.254
(the old gateway). Should my first hop displayed by tracert be the same
thing as my gateway? I know I am missing something dumb here. Can someone
help me get to the internet?

TIA.
-Steven-




Steven Platt

Welp, false alarm. I figured it out. It looks like all I needed was a
static route on my firewall. Superscope is up and working without a hitch!!
I highly recommend getting one on your network.

-Steven-

"Steven Platt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have added a superscope to help me with my IP addresses disappearing. I
>put a new childscope inside the superscope like all the articles say. I
>assigned a reservation in the new childscope just to see if the DHCP server
>would act right. All is well and it assigned the proper DNS, Gateway and
>IP address on the new network. I assigned the gateway as 192.168.47.254
>then added that ip address to the interface on my router. I can ping
>192.168.47.254 and I can access resources on my old network
>(192.168.48.0/24) but for some reason I can't get to the internet. When I
>tracert microsoft.com it resolves but shows my first hop as 192.168.48.254
>(the old gateway). Should my first hop displayed by tracert be the same
>thing as my gateway? I know I am missing something dumb here. Can someone
>help me get to the internet?
>
> TIA.
> -Steven-
>

"Steven Platt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Welp, false alarm. I figured it out. It looks like all I needed was a static
> route on my firewall. Superscope is up and working without a hitch!! I highly
> recommend getting one on your network.

I would never recommend a Superscope.
I would never recommend more than 250-300 hosts per segment (/24 bit mask)

Superscopes are for Multi-Netting, which is rarely done today since VLANs made
them obsolete.

Networks with more than 254 hosts should be split into two Segments.

--
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed are my own (as annoying as they are), and not those of my
employer or anyone else associated with me.
-----------------------------------------------------

Seems to be working well so far. Much easier than upgrading/configuring my
router/switches.

"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Steven Platt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Welp, false alarm. I figured it out. It looks like all I needed was a
>> static route on my firewall. Superscope is up and working without a
>> hitch!! I highly recommend getting one on your network.
>
> I would never recommend a Superscope.
> I would never recommend more than 250-300 hosts per segment (/24 bit mask)
>
> Superscopes are for Multi-Netting, which is rarely done today since VLANs
> made them obsolete.
>
> Networks with more than 254 hosts should be split into two Segments.
>
> --
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com
>
> The views expressed are my own (as annoying as they are), and not those of
> my employer or anyone else associated with me.
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>