On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 11:01:19AM -0600, josh at joshwelch.com wrote: > Quoting John Reese <jwreese0 at comcast.net>: > > > I work for a company that has nearly exhausted its Class C range of IP > > addresses. We decided to get by the problem by using a single Linux > > router running iptables to route the exhausted 192.168.1.0 network > > (eth0) to three LANs with numbers 192.168.101.0, 192.168.102.0, and > > 192.168.103.0 (eth1, eth2, and eth3). Our goal is to have clients inside > > those networks see a single server in the old 192.168.1.0 network. <clip> > If I understand correctly you have a LAN that you have numbered using numbers in > the 192.168.1.0/255.255.255.0 range. You're needs are expanding beyond 255 > addresses so you are going to segment your network and have some folks live on > 192.168.2.0/255.255.255.0 and some live on 192.168.3.0/255.255.255.0. <clip> Can't you just keep it all on one big network and widen the netmask out from 255.255.255.0 to say 255.255.0.0 or something inbetween? Do you want to segment your network up into different networks for other reasons? I've no experience with larger IP networks, so maybe I'm missing something. Karl. _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota Help beta test TCLUG's potential new home: http://plone.mn-linux.org Got pictures for TCLUG? Beta test http://plone.mn-linux.org/gallery tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list