ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
subnet query
- Thread starter cava83
- Start date
CCNA - what's that
Nah, for work, want to redo the network.
Unsure if to use the above or
10.1.10.x /24 - Site A
10.1.20.x /24 - Site B
10.1.30.x /24 - Site C
Subnets, got to love it .
Just use this?
Depends on what is on the network really - using Firewalls? VPN Ip's WAN Ip's etc how many potential users?
The bottom example would work. The first one you suggested wouldn't.
If you had all your routers on 10.10.1.x, switches on 10.10.2.x and servers on 10.10.3.x you wouldn't be able to use a 24 bit subnet mask. The subnet mask is there to limit the size of the network.
A 24 bit subnet mask gives you 256 hosts per subnet, less 2 for the network and broadcast addresses = 254 useable addresses. Therefore, 10.10.1.1 - 10.10.1.254 could communicate with each other, 10.10.2.1 - 10.10.2.254 could etc..., but 10.10.1.x couldn't communicate directly with 10.10.2.x without first making another hop via a router / L3 switch of some kind.
That scenario would only be workable if you used a 22 bit subnet mask or lower. 22 bit would give you 1022 useable hosts. You couldn't use a 23 bit subnet mask because that would limit you to 510 hosts, which for the above 3 ranges isn't enough.
What I'd do if I was you, would be to draw up a topology diagram of the network, indicating exactly what equipment is at each site and what its roles are. It'd be much easier for techie bods to make suggestions then.
If you had all your routers on 10.10.1.x, switches on 10.10.2.x and servers on 10.10.3.x you wouldn't be able to use a 24 bit subnet mask. The subnet mask is there to limit the size of the network.
A 24 bit subnet mask gives you 256 hosts per subnet, less 2 for the network and broadcast addresses = 254 useable addresses. Therefore, 10.10.1.1 - 10.10.1.254 could communicate with each other, 10.10.2.1 - 10.10.2.254 could etc..., but 10.10.1.x couldn't communicate directly with 10.10.2.x without first making another hop via a router / L3 switch of some kind.
That scenario would only be workable if you used a 22 bit subnet mask or lower. 22 bit would give you 1022 useable hosts. You couldn't use a 23 bit subnet mask because that would limit you to 510 hosts, which for the above 3 ranges isn't enough.
What I'd do if I was you, would be to draw up a topology diagram of the network, indicating exactly what equipment is at each site and what its roles are. It'd be much easier for techie bods to make suggestions then.
Last edited:
Rav4
Hi,
This is the idea.
http://www.jameshallam.co.uk/networkDesign/
I have re-thought the requirements and realised I want an easy implementation and thus, a single domain will be implemented. Thus, please ignore the sub domains. Therefore, single domain, multi site scenario will be implemented.
Please note, we have two types of exchange.
1)hosted
2)internal
The hosted version is used by 95% of the company from all three sites.
Internal version is used by 5% and only from one single site, the first one, they also have their own file server.
Thanks very much
This is the idea.
http://www.jameshallam.co.uk/networkDesign/
I have re-thought the requirements and realised I want an easy implementation and thus, a single domain will be implemented. Thus, please ignore the sub domains. Therefore, single domain, multi site scenario will be implemented.
Please note, we have two types of exchange.
1)hosted
2)internal
The hosted version is used by 95% of the company from all three sites.
Internal version is used by 5% and only from one single site, the first one, they also have their own file server.
Thanks very much
Last edited:
I wouldn't do the sub domain thing. Overkill I reckon.
I'd probably use an IP address scheme of something like 172.16.1.0/22. That'd give you the IP addresses between 172.16.1.1 and 172.16.4.254 to use. Subnet mask would be 255.255.252.0.
I'd set up a domain controller at each site and make them all global catalog servers.
I'd have a primary DNS zone hosted on a DNS server at the head office and secondary zones at the other 2 sites.
Configure the 3 sites in Active Directory Sites and Services and ensure that each one is configured with its own subnet. You can still designate a set range of the IP's for servers / routers / switches if you want.
I'd then configure DHCP on one of the servers at each site and also set up the DHCP relay agent. Set the boot threshold and hop count values so that there's no conflicts with the existing DHCP server at the same site, then you can configure the IP pools accordingly (80 / 20 rule for example) and give the network some redundancy if the DHCP service at one of the other sites fails. Also, be sure to configure the DHCP options such as DNS servers etc...
Obviously there'd be more customisation to do than that, but that's how I'd look at configuring that particular setup if it were up to me. Hub and spoke site topology IIRC.
I'd probably use an IP address scheme of something like 172.16.1.0/22. That'd give you the IP addresses between 172.16.1.1 and 172.16.4.254 to use. Subnet mask would be 255.255.252.0.
I'd set up a domain controller at each site and make them all global catalog servers.
I'd have a primary DNS zone hosted on a DNS server at the head office and secondary zones at the other 2 sites.
Configure the 3 sites in Active Directory Sites and Services and ensure that each one is configured with its own subnet. You can still designate a set range of the IP's for servers / routers / switches if you want.
I'd then configure DHCP on one of the servers at each site and also set up the DHCP relay agent. Set the boot threshold and hop count values so that there's no conflicts with the existing DHCP server at the same site, then you can configure the IP pools accordingly (80 / 20 rule for example) and give the network some redundancy if the DHCP service at one of the other sites fails. Also, be sure to configure the DHCP options such as DNS servers etc...
Obviously there'd be more customisation to do than that, but that's how I'd look at configuring that particular setup if it were up to me. Hub and spoke site topology IIRC.
if you are starting a fresh then why limit yourself, why not just give yourself loads of room for expansion.
We use 172.16.x.x /16
172.16.0.x for switches etc
172.16.1.x for servers
172.16.2.x for printers
172.16.5.x for one sites dhcp
172.16.6.x for the other sites dhcp
172.16.10.x for ilo ips for the servers
can't see any reason to make it more complicated than that, gives us loads of ips and we instantly know that a client pc on the one site is going to start 172.16.5 and that if we see a .1 address its a server etc.
We use 172.16.x.x /16
172.16.0.x for switches etc
172.16.1.x for servers
172.16.2.x for printers
172.16.5.x for one sites dhcp
172.16.6.x for the other sites dhcp
172.16.10.x for ilo ips for the servers
can't see any reason to make it more complicated than that, gives us loads of ips and we instantly know that a client pc on the one site is going to start 172.16.5 and that if we see a .1 address its a server etc.
we used to use what darren is suggesting but with 192.168.0.1-192.168.1.254 with a subnet mask of 255.255.254.0 and used 0 for pc's and 1 for servers but for some reason it used to confuse people and some would use a 255.255.255.0 mask which still worked etc.
I just thought, why restrict yourself, changing the ip scheme is a pain in the arse, done it once, don't want to do it again for a while now.
Theres not really a right or wrong way though, as long as it technically works it depends what works for you really.
I just thought, why restrict yourself, changing the ip scheme is a pain in the arse, done it once, don't want to do it again for a while now.
Theres not really a right or wrong way though, as long as it technically works it depends what works for you really.
I often have to utilise subnets to limit the physical size of networks. I'm an Information Security Engineer, so I'm quite anal about only having the minimum number of hosts addresses you can get away with available for use.
DK's example is certainly valid and TBH is a damn sight simpler to get your head around and manage, I just wouldn't do it myself because I see leaving addresses spare as a potential security risk.
DK's example is certainly valid and TBH is a damn sight simpler to get your head around and manage, I just wouldn't do it myself because I see leaving addresses spare as a potential security risk.
very valid point!
I went for the easy option as our IT dept is small for the size business we are.
Audi TT Stronic
And depending on the number of hosts... broadcast storms.
*edit* just saw your post above about broadcasts.. nevermind.
ChrisR
ClioSport Club Member
we use 172.26.x.x, with x being a different single value for each physical site.
Main site has 2 possible values of x as when one range gets full it spills over to another.
Got a couple of other quirks like an old domain that refuses to die gracefully (we so just want ot switch the damn thing off) which sits on another subnet, and our wireless system also uses a slightly different range.
We didn't put the network in, we inherited it, but it seems ok. We're only very small and likelyhood of any significant expansion is practically none
Main site has 2 possible values of x as when one range gets full it spills over to another.
Got a couple of other quirks like an old domain that refuses to die gracefully (we so just want ot switch the damn thing off) which sits on another subnet, and our wireless system also uses a slightly different range.
We didn't put the network in, we inherited it, but it seems ok. We're only very small and likelyhood of any significant expansion is practically none