<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">Well, if you wind up converting all of the machines, in the process, I'd recommend setting up DHCP to make changes like this easier in the future.<br><br>I thought about setting up VLANs, but that still requires that you modify all of the machines to change routing and stuff. How much beer have you applied to this problem, anyway?<br><br>Cheers!<br><br>Bob<br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">----- Original Message ----<br>From: "justin.bennett@dynabrade.com" <justin.bennett@dynabrade.com><br>To: nflug@nflug.org<br>Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 10:38:38 AM<br>Subject: [nflug] Bridging two Subnets (Linux Router Project?)<br><br>
<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 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>
<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></div><br></div></div><br>
<hr size=1>Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! <br><a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48223/*http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow">Play Monopoly Here and Now</a> (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.</body></html>