03-20-2015 12:09 PM - edited 03-05-2019 01:04 AM
Hi Guys
Hoping for a little advice around where a default gateway can be within a /23 subnet.
I Currently I have a site with a /24 shown below
Current Range - Site 11
IP Range - 10.1.11.X
Mask - 255.255.255.0
DG - 10.1.11.1
I have well over 200+ devices currently utilising this subnet with static routes to the current DG (10.1.11.1) With major growth planned at the site we now require a /23 prior to rolling out the additional equipment. We want to avoid having to reconfigure any of these static devices as there is a mixture of IP telephony, CCTV, Display etc. and it would be too onerous a task.
Our WAN estate is currently planned as so -
Site 1 - 10.1.1.X
Site 2 - 10.1.2.X
Site 3 - 10.1.3.X
........
Site 9 - 10.1.9.X
Free - 10.1.10.X
Site 10 - 10.1.11.X
As we have a 10.1.10.X free, the plan is to change the subnet mask at Site 11 to 255.255.254.0 to allow us to use 10.1.10-11.X while keeping the default Gateway as 10.1.11.1
1) Will this work? (I've got a hesitation, and it's been a long time since I played around with IP Schemes - Something tells me that the DG would have to be within the first range of the subnet, 10.1.10.1 for example
Only other idea I have had is to add a non-suquencial subnet (i.e. 10.1.35.X) but this would then split the site and on site traffic would have to be routed at L3 which sort of gets away from the point of having a larger single subnet
Really appreciate any help someone can give!
Thanks
C
03-20-2015 12:31 PM
It will work as long as you update the subnet masks on all devices to be 255.255.254.0.
The default gateway is usually the first, or less common in my experience, the last in the range but it doesn't have to be.
Jon
03-20-2015 12:37 PM
Yes this would technically work.
If you have one subnet of 10.1.10.x/23 then your IP address range would be,
10.1.10.1 - 10.1.11.254
If you did this, you would need to change the subnet mask on your devices from 255.255.255.0 to 255.255.254.0 otherwise you could run into issues.
03-20-2015 01:01 PM
Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
(Dang just lost 20 minutes of work when tried to post - so an abbreviated version ...)
I'm assuming you don't want to touch existing 10.1.11.0/24 hosts (except for GW).
If so, it might work. The principle concern would be hosts configured for 10.1.11.0/24 sending to the bottom half of 10.1.10.0/23 will see those IPs in another subnet and will go to their GW, if they have a GW. If they all proxied, it should work fine, but I'm unsure what the GW will do. If it sends a redirect, it might work.
Also hosts configured for 10.1.11.0/24 might have an issue with the IP 10.1.11.0.
An alternative would be to go ahead and define another GW IP on the same interface, for example, a secondary GW IP for 10.1.10.0/24. Hosts would send to the GW, for traffic between the two subnets on the same wire, but I believe if redirection is enabled, GW would send the destination host's IP as the new GW for that destination. If so, most traffic between the two subnets, on the same wire, would bypass going to the GW IPs.
03-20-2015 01:39 PM
Joe
the plan is to change the subnet mask at Site 11 to 255.255.254.0
could have saved yourself a lot of typing :-)
Jon
03-20-2015 01:57 PM
Hi Jon
Forgive my ignorance here, as I say long away from IP (although this chat is leading towards me picking back up my press books again!) Do hosts take their mask from the GW, even if statically configured?
We aren't planning on making any changes to hosts, so my understanding is they would retain their subnet mask along with existing IP address? Leading me to think we may be better creating two /24 networks and routing between
Thanks
C
03-20-2015 02:48 PM
Ahh okay.
Joe, apologies, I should have read the post better myself :-)
Then you will have some issues as Joe pointed out.
No hosts don't take their masks from gateways, I was assuming you were going to give the hosts the 255.255.254.0 subnet mask as well.
Joe's suggestion of leaving the router with a /24 for 10.1.11.x and configuring a secondary IP for 10.1.10.x with a ./24 again is probably your workaround although I don't believe there can be redirects if by that Joe means ICMP redirects because if you send an ICMP redirect to a 10.1.10.x client for example the redirect has to be another 10.1.10.x IP by definition.
The router can't send an ICMP redirect to a 10.1.10.x client pointing to a 10.1.11.x IP because the client would have to send the traffic back to the router because it isn't in the same subnet.
If you don't use a secondary address you can simply give the router a 255.255.254.0 subnet mask and rely it on to relay between the IP subnets although I have seen issues with that.
Either of the above to my mind are temporary fixes rather than long term solutions.
Personally if you do no not need these new devices to be in the same L2 vlan then I would just use the spare IP subnet with a new L3 interface and route between.
It would be much more standard and save you any potential issues.
It depends on whether you have a spare L3 interface.
Obviously if it is a L3 switch then it is just an SVI but if it is a router you may not have one spare although you could always use subinterfaces.
Jon
03-20-2015 01:48 PM
Hi Joseph
Thanks for the quick response on this, it makes a lot of sense now explained and I really appreciate it. Also highlighting that the issue lies more so with the hosts in the existing subnet still retaining their old subnet masks, over the gateway itself.
You mention the respective gateways not being utilised with two configured /24 subnets if 'redirection' were enabled on the router. Can you elaborate on this as I haven't heard the term before, or potentially refer to it as something else?
We are using Cisco routers in affect out of the box with minimal configuration over than of the addressing and basic routing, is this something we would need to configure over and above?
P.S. Sorry about the 20 minutes of lost work.... I know the feeling too well!
03-21-2015 05:46 AM
Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
Redirection is when the initial GW tells the sending host there's another GW with a better path to the destination.
Jon raises a great point that my initial mention of using redirection might not work because there's two different subnets involved. I've already noted I wasn't sure what the GW would do, i.e. whether it would send a redirection message if a 10.1.11.0/24 host sends to the lower half of 10.1.10.0/23. I've been assuming the GW is changed to 10.1.11.1/23, so it will see the destination on the local subnet. This is why I'm unsure whether it will send a redirection message.
However, if GW did send the redirection message, then Jon's mention about the sending host creates another potential issue, as the sending host (still on 10.1.11.0/24) would still see the redirection IP as on a different subnet. So, I'm also unsure how the sending host will respond.
It's something you could try, but even assuming it worked, unless we dug through the RFCs and could show it ought to work, it's not an approach you would really want to rely on. Even if the RFCs said it should work, it's unusual enough that it's the kind of thing that you're likely to find a bug in its implementation.
That said, what you could do though is change your GW to 10.1.11.1/23, not allocate (initially) any IPs not also in 10.1.11.0/24, and convert your devices to the /23 mask (if any are DHCP, that would be easy for them). Once all your devices are using the /23 mask, you can start to allocate IPs from the bottom half.
If you need additional IP space NOW, you could either permanently allocate them from a new address block, and not plan on changing the hosts in 10.1.11.0/24, or temporarily allocate them in a different address block, not using the lower half of 10.1.10.0/23, while you migrate as described in the prior paragraph. Once the migration is finished you migrate those new hosts into 10.1.10.0/23 and remove the temporary network.
The only advantage of the last, it gets all your hosts, eventually, into 10.1.10.0/23 (which may, or may not, be a good thing).
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide