Any problem using 172.16.x.x on a LAN ??

Home Forums Networking General Networking Any problem using 172.16.x.x on a LAN ??

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
  • Avatar

    I would like to pose a network address question. My company is merging with another company, so we will be on the same LAN and subnet. We both have 192.168.xx addresses at the moment, but when we merge, we are expected to all have the same addressing scheme which is 192.168.125.x. Combined we will need approx. 240 host addresses, close to the max on such a subnet.

    Before I go to my senior networking consultant to request a change to 172.16.x.x addressing, which is what would be the next logical step if we care to grow at all in the future, does anyone see any problems with changing from a Class C non-routable, reserved network address to a Class B address such as for our new LAN in a new building? It seems that setting up a new LAN in a new building is the ideal time to change the addressing scheme.

    Every class has a set of addresses reserved for LAN’s, I don’t know why any administrator would use to begin with since you are starting out with a limitation of 254 hosts. I inherited my address scheme which is 254 sounds like a lot, when I first started I had 11 workstations, and now, 7 years later I will have 240. You never know how much you’re going to grow.

    Sorry this is so long. Is there any reason why a network administrator can’t use with a subnet address of for a LAN? That should give me 64 thousand possible hosts instead of 254.
    Thanks in advance, Will

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.