<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thanks for the replies. :) No
beer yet, but it's still early. :) </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Yeah The extra broadcasts I have thought
about as well, especially with 200 windows pcs. :) </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I do DHCP in our remote offices and
we do limited DHCP but it's limted to certain MAC addresses for some people
who have laptops, we don't use DHCP for the 200 desktops for the fact that
we have remote salesmen who routinely fly to Buffalo for training (they
plug into alot of hotel connections) and I don't just want them to plug
into the network and get an address, unless we virusscan their PCs first,
and didn't feel like maintinaing 200 host entries for the desktops. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I'll keep vyatta in mind but I think
any out of the box linux distribution is sufficent for this instance.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thanks!</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Justin</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font><img src=cid:_1_0819357C08192FF80053F23785257356>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Mark Musone"
<mmusone@shatterit.com></b> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: nflug-bounces@nflug.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">09/14/2007 11:07 AM</font>
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
nflug@nflug.org</font></div></table>
<br>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><nflug@nflug.org></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">RE: [nflug] Bridging two Subnets (Linux
Router Project?)</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="sans-serif">Oh..one more thing..i’m
not a fan of option #1, less because of your negatives, and mostly because
of bandwidth, collisions, and broadcast storms..I tend to like only having
a max of 250 servers/network because it creates a self-imposed line in
the sand to ensure that my bandwidth does not get saturated..</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="sans-serif"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="sans-serif">Mark</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="sans-serif"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="sans-serif"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> nflug-bounces@nflug.org [mailto:nflug-bounces@nflug.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>justin.bennett@dynabrade.com<b><br>
Sent:</b> Friday, September 14, 2007 10:39 AM<b><br>
To:</b> nflug@nflug.org<b><br>
Subject:</b> [nflug] Bridging two Subnets (Linux Router Project?)</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
Hey Folk,</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
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><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
1. Drop the subnet mast to 255.255.252.0 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><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
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><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
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><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
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><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
Thanks</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
Justin</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font><img src=cid:_1_0818D5100818C7C40053F23785257356><tt><font size=2>_______________________________________________<br>
nflug mailing list<br>
nflug@nflug.org<br>
http://www.nflug.org/mailman/listinfo/nflug<br>
</font></tt>
<br>