SV: Increase number of available ip-addresses

> Also, when you get a few hundred wireless users on one flat network, live will suck for most of them.

I'd say having a few hundred users on the same network / subnet doesn't necessarily mean trouble. I have a few of these installations where I have up to about 500 users simultaneously on the same subnet and as long as you've got gigabit switches with high enough throughput it seems to work fine. At least it has for me. We even run airprint (that uses multicast) in these networks and it all works fast and fine.

I would, however, draw the line somewhere just over 500. Broadcast traffic would probably seriously flood the network by then.


/Daniel Jokinen




-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Ralf Petry [mailto:[email protected]]
Skickat: den 13 september 2013 12:57
Till: [email protected]
Ämne: Re: [m0n0wall] Increase number of available ip-addresses

Thanks.
quoting: Also, when you get a few hundred wireless users on one flat network, live will suck for most of them.

I can imagine that, nevertheless, it is wanted to have the possibility of having a few hundred wireless users....

quoting: You could run multiple firewalls... (Or multiple interfaces, but captive portal can only run on one of them.)

no chance for that...

best regards...
ralf.

Am 12.09.13 21:06, schrieb Lee Sharp:
> On 09/12/2013 04:39 AM, Ralf Petry wrote:
>> Hy, (note in advance: my English might be a bit, well, rusty...) I'm
>> using m0n0wall mainly with the Voucher function. I understand, that
>> the number of available ip-addresses given by the DHCP-Server is
>> limited. Nevertheless, I have been asked, if there was the
>> possibility to include more than 250 ip-requests. (Don't ask me about
>> the sense...) The only way I could imagine, is, with allowing my
>> WLAN-Access Points to set up their own subnets and route to the
>> m0n0wall instead of passing through the adress-requests from the clients.
>>
>> Would there be another possibility (e.g. with more subnets dealt by
>> the DHCP-service of m0n0wall itself)?
>
> Ditch class C.  172.16.0.0 is class b, and commonly 255.255.0.0 and
> 10.0.0.0 is class a, commonly 255.0.0.0.
>
> While you can make you class c larger with 192.168.0.0/23 you may have
> issues with some applications that do not like classless routing that
> gets larger.
>
> Also, when you get a few hundred wireless users on one flat network,
> live will suck for most of them.  You could run multiple firewalls...
> (Or multiple interfaces, but captive portal can only run on one of
> them.)
>
>             Lee
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]