<div>My knee-jerk response to this is to ask why you're not assigning all those addresses with DHCP. Make the subnet change on the server and you're set.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>--Dennis</div>
<div> </div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/14/07, <b class="gmail_sendername"><a href="mailto:justin.bennett@dynabrade.com">justin.bennett@dynabrade.com</a></b> <<a href="mailto:justin.bennett@dynabrade.com">justin.bennett@dynabrade.com
</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br><font face="sans-serif" size="2">Hey Folk,</font> <br><br><font face="sans-serif" size="2"> I have an increasing situation that I'm looking to be proactive about. I have a class C internal network at our office here, that due to growth is running out of IPs, it's a
192.168.x.0/24 situation. I've come up with two possible solutions, fell free to suggest others, it doesn't have to be a free solution, just production quality.</font> <br><br><font face="sans-serif" size="2">1. Drop the subnet mast to
<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://255.255.252.0/" target="_blank">255.255.252.0</a> or less, This gives me more IPs, and makes no physical changes to the network, but requires me to reconfigure 250+ pcs, servers, VPNs, VPN routes on remote sites, ect. This is not really desirable.
</font> <br><br><font face="sans-serif" size="2">2. Create a new 192.168.(x+1).0 subnet on a separate physical network and bridge the two with a router. All new network drops would get plugged into this subnet.</font> <br>
<br><font face="sans-serif" size="2"> The second solution is more appealing to me as it doesn't require changing all the existing devices, except adding a route to a firewall or two. The problem is I don't think I'm looking at a Cisco router in this situation, I would want probably 2 GB interfaces one for the existing subnet and one for the new and just have it route between the two, I don't want any packet filtering, firewalling, ect. Just simple static routing. I don't seem to find GB ethernet in the cisco routers unless you buy something modular and add cards, then It has way too many features l don't need and starts to get pricey. I know I can do the same with a Linux box with 2 cheap GB cards, even with an out of the box Red Hat dist. There used to be a Linux Router Project but looks like it's no longer maintained.
</font><br><br><font face="sans-serif" size="2"> Is anyone had a similar situation? How have you handled it. Is there a better router / hardware device that I don't know of that does what I want?</font> <br><br>
<font face="sans-serif" size="2">Thanks</font> <br><font face="sans-serif" size="2">Justin</font> <br><br><font face="sans-serif" size="2"> <br></font><img src="cid:_1_08258E980825844800506FF785257356"><br>_______________________________________________
<br>nflug mailing list<br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:nflug@nflug.org">nflug@nflug.org</a><br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.nflug.org/mailman/listinfo/nflug" target="_blank">
http://www.nflug.org/mailman/listinfo/nflug</a><br><br></blockquote></div><br>