Maybe dumb question, but at some point in time, a previous network engineer defined a machine network as 10.100.1.0 255.255.0.0 when it should have been 255.255.255.0. It was in place for several years and there are several hundred PLC devices now configured that way. My other remote sites have PLC subnets of 10.100.5.0 255.255.255.0, 10.100.6.0 255.255.255.0 and so on. In my core, can I do broad
statement with smaller
statement subnets under it or above it?
ip route 10.100.5.0 255.255.255.0 172.16.1.14
ip route 10.100.6.0 255.255.255.0 172.16.1.14
ip route 10.100.7.0 255.255.255.0 172.16.1.14
ip route 10.100.0.0 255.255.0.0 172.16.12.25
Solved! Go to Solution.
For static route it work but
You will face many issue with conflict IP in site and
For example pc in
Which is same IP of host in other site .7/24
So overlapping happened sure.
There some solution like use
plant site, they only use 10.100.1.0 - 10.100.4.254 so even though they technically could assign a
there is no DHCP, they wouldn't assign that IP statically at the
I've wanted to change it, but there are literally 700 or so devices that they would need to manually change on the plant production side
That good if
use from .0 ip to .4
But pc in
get ip from DHCP with
Now this pc need to connect to 10.100.5.100
The pc not send this traffic to GW' the pc with subnet and subnet mask receive from dhcp assume that 10.100.5.100 in same subnet and send
arp ask IP-MAC'
here the connection is failed.
or change site SuperNer (instead of 10.100 let be 10.101) is better.
those static routes look okay - the longer static statements /24 point to a different next hop then the shorter /16 which is applicable meaning any packet not matching any of the /24 routes will be routed via the /16 route