It is possible to implement larger subnets than /24 without leaping all the
way to /16
Best is always subjective, but without telling us how many IPs you
foresee needing, and other key details, you'll be the only person capable
of determining it.
You have to ensure that all your edge and
I'll second everything ASB said, and add one more remark: If one
*is* going to reorganize the network topology -- say, by putting
servers in one net, wireless in another, or what-have-you -- this
would be the time to do it.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Andrew S. Baker asbz...@gmail.com
I with Ben on this go the option 2 and get it done now rather than wait
until it bites you again with other issues. Segregation would have the
added benefit of reducing the attack surface for the servers if nothing
else comes out of it.
Jon
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Ben Scott
Pshaw! Just implement IPv6 and be done with it!! hehehe
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Jon Harris jk.har...@gmail.com wrote:
I with Ben on this go the option 2 and get it done now rather than wait
until it bites you again with other issues. Segregation would have the
added benefit of
You are just having way too much fun today Don.
Jon
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Don Ely don@gmail.com wrote:
Pshaw! Just implement IPv6 and be done with it!! hehehe
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Jon Harris jk.har...@gmail.com wrote:
I with Ben on this go the option 2 and get
I doubt though that IPv6 alone would fix the problem though. It may have
been tongue in check but it is a valid thought. How valid would depend on
the hardware involved.
Jon
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Jon Harris jk.har...@gmail.com wrote:
You are just having way too much fun today Don.
