Question about IP's used in a network.

[cdysthe]

Hi,

This is probably a pretty silly question for those in the know, but here goes: Can IP's close to each other "interfere" with each other in any way? Let's say I have a network where the router's IP is 10.0.0.1 and I need to assign a IP to a device. Does it matter whether I use 10.0.0.2 or 10.0.0 254? Since I do not really understand how IP's "work" this question may emphasize my ignorance

 

[L&LD]

Hi,

This is probably a pretty silly question for those in the know, but here goes: Can ports close to each other "interfere" with each other in any way? Let's say I have a network where the router's IP is 10.0.0.1 and I need to assign a port to a device. Does it matter whether I use 10.0.0.2 or 10.0.0 254? Since I do not really understand how ports "work" this question may emphasize my ignorance

What you're describing is not ports. Rather, IP's. They do not interfere (nothing would work if that was the case).

 

[cdysthe]

What you're describing is not ports. Rather, IP's. They do not interfere (nothing would work if that was the case).

Now that was embarrassing! Of course I meant IP's! I have corrected my post. Thank you for your answer and pointing out how totally off I ended up being.

Come to think of it, I would like to know if neighboring ports interfere with each other

 

[L&LD]

Now that was embarrassing! Of course I meant IP's! I have corrected my post. Thank you for your answer and pointing out how totally off I ended up being.

Come to think of it, I would like to know if neighboring ports interfere with each other

No problem!

For either ports or IP's the answer I gave previously should be the same.

 

[coxhaus]

Not in a small home network. Sometimes in large networks which are superscoped and sub divided you can end up with a broadcast IP address laying on a busy IP address which can cause an issue. I have seen it in the old days. But we had 8000 PCs in play. Equipment is better now days than 25 years ago.

 

[RMerlin]

It might make management easier to define some method in how you allocate IPs. For instance, you could configure the DHCP to handle 192.168.0.100 through 192.168.0.199. Then, set DHCP reservations within that range, and static IPs for clients starting with 200. Using IPs that are easy to memorize is also a good idea if you need to access some devices through their IP (for example, 192.168.0.200 for a printer, 192.168.0.250 for a NAS, etc...)

 

[coxhaus]

RMerlin, you are talking very small networking. It's not so simple when there are lots of hardware and dozen are so people working on different networking projects all at the same time with thousands of machines. At the time with had PCs, a big IBM mainframe Sun machines, and Novell servers. This was in the old days. We had racks full of Cisco switches and routers at the time. Cisco GIG was just coming around with GIG fiber I believe but it was long ago.

 

[cdysthe]

It might make management easier to define some method in how you allocate IPs. For instance, you could configure the DHCP to handle 192.168.0.100 through 192.168.0.199. Then, set DHCP reservations within that range, and static IPs for clients starting with 200. Using IPs that are easy to memorize is also a good idea if you need to access some devices through their IP (for example, 192.168.0.200 for a printer, 192.168.0.250 for a NAS, etc...)

That's a great idea. Just reorganized my network keeping fixed IPs below 10.0.0.100 and set DHCP above up to 200.

 

[RMerlin]

RMerlin, you are talking very small networking.

Well, the name of this site is SmallNetworkBuilders, isn't?

 

[cdysthe]

Well, the name of this site is SmallNetworkBuilders, isn't?

Is "small" defined anywhere? My company has 20 and my home network has 7 users. I would assume they are both small?

 

[RMerlin]

Is "small" defined anywhere? My company has 20 and my home network has 7 users. I would assume they are both small?

My answer was more tongue-in-cheek than anything, in reference to coxhaus's "thousands of machines".

By small I assume it means anything typically found at home or in small offices. Once you start to involve multiple branch offices, and technologies such as BGP routing or ATM, then it probably starts to fall outside the scope of this site/forum.

 

[cdysthe]

My answer was more tongue-in-cheek than anything, in reference to coxhaus's "thousands of machines".

By small I assume it means anything typically found at home or in small offices. Once you start to involve multiple branch offices, and technologies such as BGP routing or ATM, then it probably starts to fall outside the scope of this site/forum.

I got the tongue in cheek aspect of it But it made start thinking about what a small network actually is. Your description seem very reasonable. Anyway, without this forum I would have struggled much more building my small home network that friends and family are enjoying and has led to unpaid consultant jobs around the neighborhood when Comcast can't and won't help. Thank you!

 

[coxhaus]

I don't want to work on big networks as it is to much like work. I like small networks as they are fun and easy.

Big networks have standards which evolve over time. This does not mean there are not problems.