[RESOLVED] TCP/IP range

[Dave Lucus]

I am loading software for a nation wide company and manually entering the specified tcp/ip addresses that they assign. However, in the process of following their documentation there are numerous contradictions. My real concern is that the range of ip's that they are giving are to narrow to meet their needs. They start all numbers with 10.x.x.y. The generally suggested area is 192.xxx.xxx.yyy. Do you think that starting with 10 is narrowing the field too much? What would be you suggested starting range for 500 locations with 3 to 5 stations per location?

[cordon]

Hi.
OK, the 10.x.y.z address range is used within a private network that won't be connected to the internet or on a network which is using some sort of network address translation.

First make sure that your supervisor / manager actually wants what they told you they wanted. 500 subnets with 3 to 5 workstation / node addresses for each. All of these addresses either going through some sort of NAT process before hitting the ISP or only being used within a sealed VLAN / WAN environment. If the company already owns a pair of consecutive class C addresses, then find out if they are available for your project and use them instead.

For 510 subnets with up to 6 hosts each using the 10... starting net I would go for 10.0.0.1 to 10.0.0.7 with a mask of 255.255.255.240

10.0.0.9 to 10.0.0.15, then 10.0.0.17 to 10.0.0.23 etc.
If this is leaving you baffled, then get any CCNA text book and look up subnetting.

If on the other hand I have got it all wrong then correct me.


[This message has been edited by cordon (edited January 15, 2001).]

[NPaladin]

Whew....glad I didn't have to do that math...I hate subnetting.

------------------
Bryan Pizzuti
CompTIA A+, CNAP
[email protected]
ICQ # 8525092
Yahoo Messenger: npaladin_2000

[thirdfey]

Calcs looks good to me. Knowing subnet calcs is like eating vegetables, after a while, you start to like them even though you started off hating them. 10.x.x.x is good for ClassA large networks. 192.x.x.x is not the typical Network address you would use for a LAN. It is 192.168.x.x. Why do you feel 10.x.x.x is narrowing it down too much when 10.x.x.x has the same amount of hosts as 192.x.x.x which is over 16 million.

I would simplify it some more if you can and instead of breaking it down to a few IP's per subnet just use 10.1.x.x and 10.2.x.x. Put 250 subnets under 10.1.x.x and the rest under 10.2.x.x this way each location has its own class c address. They call up with a problem and say its 10.0.0.88 you're net gonna know where that is but if they say 10.1.20.2 you have a better chance of figuring it out, makes it easier on documentation to have network.network.network(location).host and leaves room for more hosts in the future.