1

If I create subnet 255.255.248.0 and create scope 192.168.0.1 - 192.168.0.254 and scope 192.168.1.1 - 192.168.1.254 will they be able to talk to each other? I am very new to subnetting.

2 Spice ups
2

The short answer, Yes…
that would include 192.168.0.0-192.168.7.255

5 Spice ups
3

Your scope for DHCP could be 192.168.0.1-192.168.1.254

2 Spice ups
4

Isn’t really a question of subnets, but rather routing/gateway.

If the Gateway has a static route to the other it should be able

Example, I have a VLAN with three subnets for user specific traffic, so its like this:

10.0.0.1 255.255.255.0

10.0.1.1 255.255.255.0

10.0.2.1 255.255.255.0

Even though I have a /24 mask, there are static routes to those networks, so my router knows how to go there.

5

Short answer: yes

Long Answer: 255.255.248.0 gives you a network of 192.168.0.0-192.168.7.255. Technically you could create a contiguous scope of 192.168.0.1-192.168.1.254

Question: That is a hefty number of IP addresses on one subnet. Do you really need that many?

A handy tool to use Online IP CIDR / VLSM Supernet Calculator

Also there is a widget for the Spiceworks dashboard

2 Spice ups
6

Then we get into Inter-VLAN routing and confuse the crap out of folks…Dave’s right. You could do that as well

7

Good grief charlie brown, that is a dizzying number of responses.

1 Spice up
8

Though he could split the scope as described in the OP between two DHCP servers to ensure delivery of IP addresses to devices without having to think of a complicated DR plan for DHCP. After all, that is (kinda) best practice.

9

Thanks for all the help guys! and Patrick that was the plan lol

10

is there a BA?

11

@RunGMC this is a question of subnetting entirely. What does this have to do with VLANs? VLANs separate traffice within a subnet and he clearly wants the devices to be able to communicate. You are correct about the use of static routes but how does it apply to this post? Then you switch gears again and bring inter-VLAN-routing into the mix to allow the hosts on separate VLANs to to be able to communicate.

Your reply has only increased the amount of head scratching that is going to appear when others stumble upon this post. That is why I felt obligate to post this reply.

Spice to Dave and acald…

1 Spice up
12

< acald grabs his popcorn>

13

Well said.

255.255.248.0 covers both 192.168.0.1-254 and 192.168.1.1-254 ranges (and further), so I see no obstacles to use DHCP scopes like those (if that’s what OP meant). Dave deserves a BA.