> Thanks for suggestions, have been very useful
> I would select:
> 1. Pay for a network engineer.
um-ahem. ;->
> 2. Pay for new routers and make a more complex design for
> departments.
Nah, a good layer-3 stack would do nicely. Of course, for
400 systems, that would be $5+K.
Heck, if cost is a real issue, even a layer-3 tier-1 and a
layer-2 tier-2 is doable. That would be far less costly.
Remember, managed switches give you a lot of control over
your network, especially routing with layer-3. It's cheaper
than you think.
> 3. just specify your network to be bigger than that. For
> example
> 192.168.0.0-192.168.1.255 gives you 510 hosts
> 192.168.0.0/23
Yep, supernetting.
> router-------PC with 2NICS--------Institute LAN
> real IP 192.168.0.0-192.168.1.255
> 192.168.0.0/23
> Is supernetting available this way or can be used only
> between routers?
You don't need any routing if you're supernetting, other than
to get to the Internet.
If you're going to supernet, you might as well do 4+ class
Cs, or move to a class B. I recommended supernetting because
I assume you don't want to have to change IPs (only subnet
masks).
> Actually I am with the third, because of financial issues.
Well, if you're buying equipment, you'd be surprised how
little it costs to put a layer-3 GbE switch at the top. A
layer-3 twelve (12) port GbE is sub-$1,000 these days.
Underneath it you can use "dumb" layer-2 switches (just FE)
with GbE uplinks and at least localize somethings. That's if
you're trying to do it on the cheap.
--
Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx http://thebs413.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------
*** Speed doesn't kill, difference in speed does ***
