My phone vendor will be installing a SIP based VOIP system soon and has requested that I change my internal IP address scope from class a to class c (His words). Although I am a little confused with what he has given me as a suggessted IP scheme. Currently my subnet mask is 255.0.0.0 and my IP addresses start at 123.0.0.1-254. The recommended configuration he wants is subnet mask 255.255.255.0 and my address scope to start at 123.0.1.1.-254 Now it has been a while since I studied TCP/IP but isn't this basically a class c Subnet mask but still a class A address scope. I just want make sure I'm not walking off a cliff when I make the changes and have anymore downtime than needed or have to back track. Will this work? Not really seeing why a class C subnet mask and a class A address scope makes sense. Thanks for any help on this.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations bkrike on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
IP Address scheme
- Thread starter Timmkatt
- Start date
jimbopalmer
Programmer
Both addressing schemes make some large part of the internet inaccessible to your network, needlessly.
123.x.x.x addresses out in the internet will not be reachable if you are using them locally.
RFC 1918 private address spaces exist so you do not block part of the internet.
I tried to remain child-like, all I acheived was childish.
123.x.x.x addresses out in the internet will not be reachable if you are using them locally.
RFC 1918 private address spaces exist so you do not block part of the internet.
I tried to remain child-like, all I acheived was childish.
VinceWhirlwind
Technical User
The "class A" & "class C" of the textbooks isn't quite the same as the "class A" & "class C" used on a day-to-day basis by network people.
When he said "change your scheme to class C subnets", he's telling you to change to subnets with a /24 subnet mask.
Your subnet mask is generally chosen on the basis of the number of hosts you need to cater for - a /24 subnet ("class C") can take 254 hosts, so if your office has only 100-or-so staff, this would be a good subnet size.
A /24 mask is preferable in some ways to a /23 or a /25 (etc...) because it is easier to understand for people with less training.
The kind of scheme people use would be something like this:
10.1.10.0 /24 VLAN10 DATA
10.1.20.0 /24 VLAN20 VOICE
When he said "change your scheme to class C subnets", he's telling you to change to subnets with a /24 subnet mask.
Your subnet mask is generally chosen on the basis of the number of hosts you need to cater for - a /24 subnet ("class C") can take 254 hosts, so if your office has only 100-or-so staff, this would be a good subnet size.
A /24 mask is preferable in some ways to a /23 or a /25 (etc...) because it is easier to understand for people with less training.
The kind of scheme people use would be something like this:
10.1.10.0 /24 VLAN10 DATA
10.1.20.0 /24 VLAN20 VOICE
Silverblade
Technical User
The choice of you're current addresses is pretty odd as stated with the above reasons.
But unless there will be some sort of connection (for whatever reason) between your data and voice network. There is no reason to change your addressing scheme.
If there will be a connection between voice and data I can imagine the suggestion, because there probably will be some routing issues.
The other thing I can imagine is that he wants the phones in the same network as you data. This is something I STRONGLY not recommend. If you do so your voice WILL suffer due to the data traffic.
Best thing to do is create 2 vlans (voice/data) also implement QOS on the voice vlan so there is little change you're data network is interfering with the voice network.
But unless there will be some sort of connection (for whatever reason) between your data and voice network. There is no reason to change your addressing scheme.
If there will be a connection between voice and data I can imagine the suggestion, because there probably will be some routing issues.
The other thing I can imagine is that he wants the phones in the same network as you data. This is something I STRONGLY not recommend. If you do so your voice WILL suffer due to the data traffic.
Best thing to do is create 2 vlans (voice/data) also implement QOS on the voice vlan so there is little change you're data network is interfering with the voice network.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question