Abnormal IP address range - should I change?

[baronne]

Hi,

I recently started working for a company who have a network which has the LAN IP address range 192.9.200.0

We are moving onto ADSL and I would like to change the network addressing to the norm (ie. 192.168.0.0) but it entails a fair amount of downtime and I am not sure whether I should do it or not?

Any ideas / suggestions...

thanks

Baronne

 

[wbg34]

Break from the pack be original. 192.9.200.0 is fine I wouldn't waste the time.

 

[manarth]

If you want your internal network to access the internet CHANGE YOUR RANGE!

the addresses 192.168.x.x are deliberately reserved for internal networks and are "hidden" from the rest of the internet.

the addresses 192.9.x.x can (and do) exist on the internet, so you would hold a conflicting IP address. Even if you NAT, the conflict still exists.

Whilst you're at it, it may help to structure a DHCP server so that any future IP changes (new servers / printers / workstations / etc) can be easily accommodated with minimal downtime.

<marc> i wonder what will happen if i press this...[ul][li]please give feedback on what works / what doesn't[/li][li]need some help? how to get a better answer: faq581-3339[/li][/ul]

 

[jimbopalmer]

In theory, 192.9.200.x could contain some legitimate internet sites which your firms employee's could never get to, since the computers would assume they were local to your firm, not on the internet. In practice, none exist now.

192.9.200.x is a frequent 'sample' local IP number in unix documentation

I tried to remain child-like, all I acheived was childish.

 

[pansophic]

Why does it entail downtime? You can always run both subnets simultaneously, and it will only entail downtime for each machine as you change its IP address. You may temporarily increase network traffic, but you don't have to if you add a secondary address to any shared network resource, like your gateway router and server.

You can shift to DHCP in the same manner. Running two subnets on the same infrastructure is trivial, and eliminates the need for an &quot;outage.&quot;


pansophic