You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Hello,
I have question about some kind of 'bigger' network configuration than default 192.168.1.x one.
I think about dividing my home network in few IP pool, thanks to that I could easily manage them, and know from what medium a connection was made.
All devices that I use will have static addresses (assigned by DHCP), everyone else will receive dynamic one.
I thought about something like:
192.168.1.x – Statically assigned IP for LAN devices (connected by wire)
192.168.2.x – Statically assigned IP for WLAN devices (ex. cell phones, PC, etc.)
192.168.3.x – Dynamically assigned IP for LAN/WLAN devices which do not have static addresses (for GUEST users)
I would like also to have full communication between all networks (LAN/WLAN/GUEST), but ex. guest network will be forbidden to access Internet.
Do this configuration have any 'future' ?
Is it better to create three separate networks with mask 255.255.255.0 or maybe one with 255.255.0.0. ?
How it is with performance of such solutions ?
Offline
Is it better to create three separate networks with mask 255.255.255.0 or maybe one with 255.255.0.0. ?
From a security PoV, create them as separate networks -- but if you're running them on the same Layer 2, then that is redundant.
How it is with performance of such solutions ?
In a small network, it's probably negligible depending. In larger networks, it limits the broadcast domain scope so few broadcasts are hitting each client (only the broadcasts from it's own network).
Are you familiar with our Forum Rules, and How To Ask Questions The Smart Way?
BlueHackers // fscanary // resticctl
Offline
Generally speaking if you have a broadcast domain larger than 250 or so hosts, you will have significant broadcast traffic (especially if they are noisy windows or macs -- WINS/bonjour/etc).
I generally don't make leaf networks larger than a /24 for that reason -- though smaller is ok (note I said leaf networks, for routing purposes superneting subnets or chopping into larger pieces is perfectly fine).
So I would recommend using 3 separate /24 networks, yes.
Note: if you are going to provide vpn servers, I usually would recommend choosing something other than the typical 192.168.0.0/16 private netblock. I prefer to subnet within 172.16.0.0/12 networks personally, because very few home users or free-wifi will utilize anything in that netblock (most people don't even realize they exist!).
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1918.html
10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 (10/8 prefix)
172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix)
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)
"Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you accept." -- Postel's Law
"tacos" -- Cactus' Law
"t̥͍͎̪̪͗a̴̻̩͈͚ͨc̠o̩̙͈ͫͅs͙͎̙͊ ͔͇̫̜t͎̳̀a̜̞̗ͩc̗͍͚o̲̯̿s̖̣̤̙͌ ̖̜̈ț̰̫͓ạ̪͖̳c̲͎͕̰̯̃̈o͉ͅs̪ͪ ̜̻̖̜͕" -- -̖͚̫̙̓-̺̠͇ͤ̃ ̜̪̜ͯZ͔̗̭̞ͪA̝͈̙͖̩L͉̠̺͓G̙̞̦͖O̳̗͍
Offline
By reading your posts I decided to go with 3 networks and it work fine.
Thanks!
Now I have another problem, I would appreciate if you will help me.
Offline
Pages: 1