Le 26/08/2016 à 13:55, Karl E. Jorgensen a écrit :
You may want to for different networks to allow for future expansion. Your current scheme will only allow for max ~ 250 clients per floor. And you have the IP ranges rubbing against each other without gaps... It is usually a good idea to leave "space" between the IP ranges to allow them to expand without too much trouble. And avoid making the IP range too narrow - running out of IP addresses is nasty.
If you're going that way, then you'd better use /16 subnets in 172.16.0.0/12 or in 10.0.0/8, allowing 65534 hosts per subnet from the start.
For example: floor1 - 192.168.128.0/20 [ 192.168.128.0 ... 192.168.143.255 ] floor2 - 192.168.160.0/20 [ 192.168.160.0 ... 192.168.175.255 ] floor3 - 192.168.192.0/20 [ 192.168.192.0 ... 192.168.207.255 ] floor4 - 192.168.224.0/20 [ 192.168.224.0 ... 192.168.239.255 ] With /20 it allows for ~4000 devices per floor. And there are "gaps" in the IP ranges to allow for expansion, so if the population of a floor grows, it can grow to a /19 without clashing with the next floor.
Prefix lengths which are not multiple of 8 suck for readability. There is plenty of space in the private ranges, so why bother with complicated netmasks and ranges ?