Did not work as expected / Now it is

[Simon Hobson]

Leandro <ingrogger at gmail.com> wrote:

> Gentleman , finally I manage to handle two shared networks from two relays.

Yay, got there in the end.
The only thing I'd add is that I'd suggest trying to avoid splitting address ranges quite so much.

OK, there's a large element of sticking a finger in the air and pulling numbers from nowhere, but ... try and think about which services are most likely to grow most and give them some room. SO instead of allocating 192.168.88.0/25 and 192.168.88.128/25 from the outset, try and leave 192.168.88.128/25 (and even 192.168.89.0/24) free initially.
If that network grows then you can expend it by simply changing to 192.168.88.0/24 or even 192.168.88.0/23 - which is a far cleaner situation.

If you do end up with a /25 that's full, rather than just adding another /25 - see if you can add a /24 and migrate existing users before deleting the original /25.

In the long term, it'll give you a cleaner and easier to manage network. Although what you have here will work, it's just going to scale badly in the long term.

Now, if your users have static addresses then migrating is a bit harder - but if they are all dynamic then it's fairly easy to do.