Subject: Re: Replacing oddly networked NT machine
To: Stephen Borrill <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/17/2003 09:43:06
[ On Monday, February 17, 2003 at 12:20:42 (+0000), Stephen Borrill wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Replacing oddly networked NT machine
> Well, we _could_ (and I suggested as such), but they didn't want to re-IP
> the machines unless strictly necessary.
You say they're using DHCP for the majority. If you use arpwatch on the
gateway box to discover the rest then it will be a quite quick and
painless renumbering, especially if you can get someone to help wander
around to each machine and reconfigure it to either also use DHCP, or to
use some static IP allocated carefully from outside the DHCP range. If
you set up private reverse DNS for the nets you're using then you can
use the DNS zone files to do the allocation accounting of IP address
Renumbering really is the right thing to do here. The current
configuration is really badly broken. It probably doesn't even work
100% properly under M$-NT, though it might be harder to see the problems
> As for the choices of IP addresses, this is part of a big WAN and we
> aren't really free to use our own choice of private addresses (for
> instance, if a direct IP connection was needed to another part of the WAN
> we could clash).
Well then get the WAN admins to allocate you another /24 from 10/8!
Actually if you've claimed you're already using a /16, but you don't
need it that big (you say /24 is lots for now), and if that /16 is
already allocated to you by the WAN, then you can subnet it yourself any
way you please -- perhaps into /18s or /20s?
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>