My network has grown to the point that my DHCP server in
my class C network always run out of IP addresses for
some clients. What is the best way to solve this problem?
I am using network address translation, thanks.

"Jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:01d201c49c26$557ca960$(E-Mail Removed)...
> My network has grown to the point that my DHCP server in
> my class C network always run out of IP addresses for
> some clients. What is the best way to solve this problem?
> I am using network address translation, thanks.

NAT is not even relative to the subject. The question I guess, is how much
are you willing to do? You could knock a bit or two off the network side of
the Subnet Mask but then you may eventually run into overcrowding of hosts
on a single logical segment. There can be effieciency problems when you
start getting near 250-300 hosts.

You could add another address block to the system to create another logical
segment, but that requires buying a LAN router or a high-end switch that has
built in routing functions, and it may require a little topology
redesigning.

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

You could re-create the scope as a class B, reconfigure any static address
machines, etc. But, Phill is right, if you are already approaching 250
machines on this network, it's probably time to create a second subnet. You
need a router, or you could use a 2 adpater windows machine.

Doug Sherman
MCSE Win2k/NT4.0, MCSA, MCP+I, MVP

"Jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:01d201c49c26$557ca960$(E-Mail Removed)...
> My network has grown to the point that my DHCP server in
> my class C network always run out of IP addresses for
> some clients. What is the best way to solve this problem?
> I am using network address translation, thanks.

This is a bit of a complicated question that is hard to answer
well without more information.

Generally, the "best" way usually is to open up your network mask
and add another DHCP range in the new address area(s) created.

For example: if you are now using, say, 192.168.1.* with
a 24-bit network mask of 255.255.255.0 (254 addresses),
you can change your network mask to 23-bits (255.255.254.0).
This opens up 192.168.0.* for LAN use and gives you 510
useable addresses. (192.168.0.1 through 192.168.1.254)
You can then add a second scope to DHCP to give out
addresses in this new range.

The catch in the above of course is that you have to convert
every device on your network to the new addressing. This
is sometimes not so simple. You can do it in two stages: first
distribute the wider network mask through DHCP and
manual assignment as required, and then when that is done
implement the new addresses.

If your default gateway router can handle multiple static LAN network
routes you may be able to program it to route between these two
"networks" during the time you are transitioning. (This is
sometimes termed a "router-on-a-stick" BTW since all the
traffic being routed is actually coming in and going out on
the same LAN segment.)

If your site is larger, the above will not be simple at all, and may not
even be a choice. In that case you have to add another LAN network
and implement some sort of segmentation and routing topology to
connect them. You can do this in a server with multiple NICs and
RRAS, but in this case I strongly advise using a separate routing box
(or boxes) to avoid a lot of headaches.

Steve Duff, MCSE, MVP
Ergodic Systems, Inc.

"Jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:01d201c49c26$557ca960$(E-Mail Removed)...
> My network has grown to the point that my DHCP server in
> my class C network always run out of IP addresses for
> some clients. What is the best way to solve this problem?
> I am using network address translation, thanks.

The idea of renumbering the network to a class B is the
one that appears easy for me. I anticipate at the most
260 to 270 hosts. Does this pose a problem for one
network? Please let me know what I might be missing and
the problems that I'm likely to encounter, thanks.



>-----Original Message-----
>"Jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message
>news:01d201c49c26$557ca960$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> My network has grown to the point that my DHCP server
in
>> my class C network always run out of IP addresses for
>> some clients. What is the best way to solve this
problem?
>> I am using network address translation, thanks.
>
>NAT is not even relative to the subject. The question I
guess, is how much
>are you willing to do? You could knock a bit or two off
the network side of
>the Subnet Mask but then you may eventually run into
overcrowding of hosts
>on a single logical segment. There can be effieciency
problems when you
>start getting near 250-300 hosts.
>
>You could add another address block to the system to
create another logical
>segment, but that requires buying a LAN router or a high-
end switch that has
>built in routing functions, and it may require a little
topology
>redesigning.
>
>--
>
>Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
>www.wandtv.com
>
>
>.
>

"Jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1a5e01c49cdf$4038f090$(E-Mail Removed)...
> The idea of renumbering the network to a class B is the
> one that appears easy for me. I anticipate at the most
> 260 to 270 hosts. Does this pose a problem for one
> network? Please let me know what I might be missing and
> the problems that I'm likely to encounter, thanks.

It would work. But at 260-270 host you may start to experience traffic
problems since you aren't segmenting.

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

Steve, I'm now seriously considering your suggestion
below. My network is not that big and I'm now using
192.168.1.0/24 so this might work but I want to be sure
of the steps.
1). Change the subnet masks of all hosts with static IPs
to 255.255.254.0
2). In DCHP create a new scope for 192.168.0.1 to
192.168.0.254 since I already have 192.168.1.1 to
192.168.1.254.
3). I'm not very sure of the routing part - can you pls.
shed some light here or direct me to where I can get some
help, thanks.





>-----Original Message-----
>This is a bit of a complicated question that is hard to
answer
>well without more information.
>
>Generally, the "best" way usually is to open up your
network mask
>and add another DHCP range in the new address area(s)
created.
>
>For example: if you are now using, say, 192.168.1.* with
>a 24-bit network mask of 255.255.255.0 (254 addresses),
>you can change your network mask to 23-bits
(255.255.254.0).
>This opens up 192.168.0.* for LAN use and gives you 510
>useable addresses. (192.168.0.1 through 192.168.1.254)
>You can then add a second scope to DHCP to give out
>addresses in this new range.
>
>The catch in the above of course is that you have to
convert
>every device on your network to the new addressing. This
>is sometimes not so simple. You can do it in two stages:
first
>distribute the wider network mask through DHCP and
>manual assignment as required, and then when that is
done
>implement the new addresses.
>
>If your default gateway router can handle multiple
static LAN network
>routes you may be able to program it to route between
these two
>"networks" during the time you are transitioning. (This
is
>sometimes termed a "router-on-a-stick" BTW since all the
>traffic being routed is actually coming in and going out
on
>the same LAN segment.)
>
>If your site is larger, the above will not be simple at
all, and may not
>even be a choice. In that case you have to add another
LAN network
>and implement some sort of segmentation and routing
topology to
>connect them. You can do this in a server with multiple
NICs and
>RRAS, but in this case I strongly advise using a
separate routing box
>(or boxes) to avoid a lot of headaches.
>
>Steve Duff, MCSE, MVP
>Ergodic Systems, Inc.
>
>"Jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message news:01d201c49c26$557ca960$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> My network has grown to the point that my DHCP server
in
>> my class C network always run out of IP addresses for
>> some clients. What is the best way to solve this
problem?
>> I am using network address translation, thanks.
>
>
>.
>

"Jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:321c01c49e67$b0b50550$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Steve, I'm now seriously considering your suggestion
> below. My network is not that big and I'm now using
> 192.168.1.0/24 so this might work but I want to be sure
> of the steps.
> 1). Change the subnet masks of all hosts with static IPs
> to 255.255.254.0
> 2). In DCHP create a new scope for 192.168.0.1 to
> 192.168.0.254 since I already have 192.168.1.1 to
> 192.168.1.254.

No. No new scopes, just change the mask in the existing scope. You have to
delete and recreate the scope to do that.

3). I'm not very sure of the routing part - can you pls.
> shed some light here or direct me to where I can get some
> help, thanks.

There is no routing,...it as all still one subnet,...that is what the mask
does,..it broadens the IP# Range of the subnet.

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

Phillip, thanks for clarifying this but how do I
reconcile this with Steve's contribution above. I just
want to make sure I do it right the first time.
The 2 steps below is all I need to do?

>-----Original Message-----
>
>"Jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message
>news:321c01c49e67$b0b50550$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Steve, I'm now seriously considering your suggestion
>> below. My network is not that big and I'm now using
>> 192.168.1.0/24 so this might work but I want to be sure
>> of the steps.
>> 1). Change the subnet masks of all hosts with static
IPs
>> to 255.255.254.0
>> 2). In DCHP create a new scope for 192.168.0.1 to
>> 192.168.0.254 since I already have 192.168.1.1 to
>> 192.168.1.254.
>
>No. No new scopes, just change the mask in the existing
scope. You have to
>delete and recreate the scope to do that.
>
> 3). I'm not very sure of the routing part - can you pls.
>> shed some light here or direct me to where I can get
some
>> help, thanks.
>
>There is no routing,...it as all still one
subnet,...that is what the mask
>does,..it broadens the IP# Range of the subnet.
>
>--
>
>Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
>www.wandtv.com
>
>
>.
>

I thnk he was giving you more than one option and you might be confusing two
different ones together.

Changing the mask from 255.255.255.0 to 255.255.254.0 simply gives the same
subnet a larger range of addresses, that is all it does. You just have to
make sure that all hosts (computers, switches, hubs, routers, ..everything)
has their mask replaced with the new mask. Changing the DHCP Scope will
take care of all the "automatic" hosts, but you have to do all the static
ones yourself manually.

The new mask will make the old network ID 192.168.0.0 go from the old range
of:
192.168.0.0 -- 192.168.0.255 (254 usable hosts [256 minus 2])
up to the new range of:
192.168.0.0 -- 192.168.1.255 (510 usable hosts [512 minus 2])

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com


"Jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3ec401c49ff3$b72aa0b0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Phillip, thanks for clarifying this but how do I
> reconcile this with Steve's contribution above. I just
> want to make sure I do it right the first time.
> The 2 steps below is all I need to do?
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >
> >"Jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> message
> >news:321c01c49e67$b0b50550$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Steve, I'm now seriously considering your suggestion
> >> below. My network is not that big and I'm now using
> >> 192.168.1.0/24 so this might work but I want to be sure
> >> of the steps.
> >> 1). Change the subnet masks of all hosts with static
> IPs
> >> to 255.255.254.0
> >> 2). In DCHP create a new scope for 192.168.0.1 to
> >> 192.168.0.254 since I already have 192.168.1.1 to
> >> 192.168.1.254.
> >
> >No. No new scopes, just change the mask in the existing
> scope. You have to
> >delete and recreate the scope to do that.
> >
> > 3). I'm not very sure of the routing part - can you pls.
> >> shed some light here or direct me to where I can get
> some
> >> help, thanks.
> >
> >There is no routing,...it as all still one
> subnet,...that is what the mask
> >does,..it broadens the IP# Range of the subnet.
> >
> >--
> >
> >Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> >www.wandtv.com
> >
> >
> >.
> >