Re: Is this a DHCP problem?

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

I changed the network to use the one subnet at 192.168.0.x and that resolved
the issue! I installed the new SonicWall firewall and all the special
applications run fine. Thanks for your help on this one, it was driving me
crazy.

Colin

"Richard G. Harper" wrote:

> One thing is certain - having multiple subnets where you don't need them
> does tend to make troubleshooting more difficult. And it is certain that
> given the address ranges you describe you will never get all the computers
> talking to each other without some fairly complex routing arrangements - so
> if you don't need the multiple ranges you will simplify matters greatly by
> getting rid of them.
>
> --
> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@xxxxxxxxx
> * In fond memory ... Alex, you shall be sorely missed
> * http://www.aumha.org/alex.htm
>
>
>
> "colin" <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:849C535E-D3C0-4DDF-BC63-05D5C95BA029@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > You both have a good point. I was trying to keep things separate thinking
> > it
> > would make for a better organized layout but one subnet could handle
> > everything. Do you feel that my problems could be caused by having
> > different
> > subnets? That wouldn't be to difficult to change, I can do this next week
> > maybe. I'll let you know if it resolves the issue.
> >
> > Thanks for your input....
> >
> > Colin
> >
> > "Phillip Windell" wrote:
> >
> >> It is late in the day for me and I won't be back until Monday,...but I
> >> can
> >> make just a few comments. Consider what Richard is saying,..he and I are
> >> thinking on the same lines.
> >>
> >> "colin" <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:E90A4951-1C44-4311-BC36-0D980A3D6802@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > Do I have something wrong with the network setup? In effect I have
> >> everything
> >> > going to a Dlink DGS-1008T gigabit switch. 4 servers and 4 24 port
> >> > Dlink
> >> > DES-1024G switches are connected to it. The sonicwall is plugged into
> >> > one
> >> of
> >> > the 24 port switches. The switches must be acting as the router, I
> >> > didn't
> >> > configure anything special for the different subnets, everything is
> >> > just
> >> > plugged into the ports.
> >>
> >> Switches don't normally act as routers, althought there are "Layer3
> >> Switches" that are routers and switches built into the same device
> >> together.
> >> But even those only operate as switches by default,...they aren't going
> >> to
> >> act as router by accident,...you would have had to do it on purpose.
> >>
> >> > I'm not using the DMZ port. I don't believe there is
> >> > any configuration in the sonicwall to reference the internal network as
> >> it's
> >> > just acting as an internet sharing device as you said.
> >>
> >> There has to be. It can't operate as a NAT Device without that.
> >> Typically
> >> it is called a "Local Address Table", but the exact "lingo" may vary. I'm
> >> not personally familiar with SonicWalls.
> >>
> >> > 0.x subnet (servers):
> >> > Hostname : Communigate
> >> > IP address: 192.168.0.3
> >> > Mask : 255.255.0.0
> >> > Gateway : 192.168.0.1
> >>
> >> > 1.x subnet (Dynamic workstations):
> >> > Hostname: melody01
> >> > IP address : 192.168.1.29
> >> > Mask : 255.255.0.0
> >> > Gateway : 192.168.0.1
> >>
> >> > 2.x subnet (static workstations):
> >> > Hostname: cowen01
> >> > ip address : 192.168.2.9
> >> > mask : 255.255.255.0
> >> > gateway : 192.168.0.1
> >>
> >> The subnet masks are incompatible. The Mask causes 0.x, 1.x, and 2.x to
> >> actually be in the same subnet. However the Mask in 2.x contradicts that.
> >>
> >> I would suggest using *only* the 2.x subnet and drop the others
> >> completely
> >> because 0.x and 1.x are extremely heavily over-used and will cause you
> >> problems in the future if you use VPN. The Mask should only be
> >> 255.255.255.0. Your network will be just one single subnet with a
> >> maximum
> >> of 254 hosts which is plenty for what you have. I think Richard is
> >> thinking
> >> on similar lines.
> >>
> >> I'll watch for posts on Monday if you haven't figured something out by
> >> then.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> >> www.wandtv.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
.

Quantcast