Pondering Network Setup

[superred]

I am thinking of implementing a home network from scratch using the following:

1)W2k server
2)3 connected W2k PC's via kingston hub
3)Provide ICS from main server to clients

My assumptions would be the following and please correct me if I am wrong:

Name - Data1
Server IP - 10.160.10.1
Subnet Mask - 255.255.0.0
DNS - 10.160.10.1
Gateway IP - 10.160.1.1

Client PC's to be set-up for DHCP and their DNS settings to reflect the main server (10.160.10.1)for name resolution.

I understand that the DHCP scope needs to be set-up on the server to incorporate an IP range? (10.160.10.1 - 10.160.10.100 perhaps??)
Any additional servers that I may add can follow on in sequence ie..Data2 could be 10.160.10.2, Data3 could be 10.160.10.3??

Would the above work and what else should I consider?
The numbers I have chosen are just examples.
I would welcome a better number range?

 

[Whoheard]

Just a recommendation...
Keep you server addresses out of DHCP scope. Static the servers--always.

If it were me, then I would put another 255 in my subnet mask so it is not such a large ip network, i.e. 255.255.255.0. If you plan on having 64,000+ nodes, then the other way is just fine.

Who is providing your DNS? If your server cannot resovle the name resolution, then where does it go to get answers?

Any particular reason why you are not using a router of some kind?

Just curious.

Bob

 

[superred]

These are the kind of constructive comments I need, thanks Whoheard.

I will use the static IP address for the server and perhaps start the DHCP scope at around 10.160.10.5 to 10.160.10.50
I would guess the reason for this is that the address alwayts needs to be the smae for the server?

The subnet was a typo honest...lol I meant 255.255.255.0

Is there any reason you can see why my server would not be able to resolve my names?
no particular reason why I am not using a router other than the fact I only have a 6 way hub at home sitting doing nothing at present.

 

[Whoheard]

I've been there on the typos...know what you mean.

DNS: It would really depend on what type of work you want to do behind the server/gateway. Me personally, if I did not have to mess with DNS, I would let the ISP provide it. It would just simplify the DNS resolution.

Router: A simple Linksys, or other type of small router would be much more efficient than the server. < than $100.

Bob

 

[superred]

I am looking essentially to set-up a home network obviously with the 3 PC's in different rooms.
They will then interface with the W2K server via Active Directory and be able to utilise ICS.
I will setting up a printer via local LPT on the server and sharing it to all clients too.
Do you think a router would be more preferable for this then?

 

[sgscit]

a basic DSL/cable router can do dhcp, nat and work as the hub. You could the set your dns to go directly to the ISP.

I had to do this for a while until i got my network's DNS going correctly.

Cheers,

Pete