jouster
Distinguished Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2005
- Messages
- 18,920
- Reaction score
- 9,855
- Points
- 4,526
- Age
- 49
- Location
- Abberton, Colchester, Essex
So, as above, my home network is quite busy already, with 19 Sonos units, Two mesh systems, 10+ Echo devices, multiple phones, IP cameras, Wi-Fi lights etc etc, you name it, the collection keeps on growing. I’d like to add some Shelly L1 switches/relays to give some smart lighting control but this could add another 10.
All of these devices I’ve given static IPs so I can easily manage and group them but as each group grows I need to juggle things about and it’s getting harder all the time. I have a DCHP setup for guests and this is reserved for the last 54 IPs on the range.
so I am currently running DDWRT on a Linksys router and it’s working well. My current IP range is, for example, 192.168.1.1-254. Using a subnet of 255,255.255.0
192.168.1.1 being the router, 192.168.1.2-200 being my static IPs and the last 54 addresses handed out to guest devices when they join the network
so as a way of managing the different groups of devices, eg phones, tablet, Sonos, smart assistants, computer, lights...etc etc. I’d like to adjust my subnets to give me multiple ranges, eg 255.255.252.0 which I understand could give me 192.168.0.1-254, 192.192.168.1.1-254, 192.168.2.1-254 and 192.168.3.1-254, so potential 4 x 254...this would of course be overkill for most but give me more space for each type of device/group and less jiggling of static IPs over time
so am I right saying I can do this with my existing router, apart from being massive overkill (this would give 1022 potential devices/hosts but of course I’d never expect to use even a half of them), but it’s really just for segregation,
is there anything that could cause me problems...I assume everything on these separate subnets could communicate with each other and they could all communicate with the internet.
yes i know it’s a ridiculous amount of control where it’s possibly not needed, but I’ve been manipulating my network for so long and have detailed info of network usage already in place, this would just give me further control on my growing network And the number of devices is unlikely to go down any time soon
appreciate any opinions, suggestions
All of these devices I’ve given static IPs so I can easily manage and group them but as each group grows I need to juggle things about and it’s getting harder all the time. I have a DCHP setup for guests and this is reserved for the last 54 IPs on the range.
so I am currently running DDWRT on a Linksys router and it’s working well. My current IP range is, for example, 192.168.1.1-254. Using a subnet of 255,255.255.0
192.168.1.1 being the router, 192.168.1.2-200 being my static IPs and the last 54 addresses handed out to guest devices when they join the network
so as a way of managing the different groups of devices, eg phones, tablet, Sonos, smart assistants, computer, lights...etc etc. I’d like to adjust my subnets to give me multiple ranges, eg 255.255.252.0 which I understand could give me 192.168.0.1-254, 192.192.168.1.1-254, 192.168.2.1-254 and 192.168.3.1-254, so potential 4 x 254...this would of course be overkill for most but give me more space for each type of device/group and less jiggling of static IPs over time
so am I right saying I can do this with my existing router, apart from being massive overkill (this would give 1022 potential devices/hosts but of course I’d never expect to use even a half of them), but it’s really just for segregation,
is there anything that could cause me problems...I assume everything on these separate subnets could communicate with each other and they could all communicate with the internet.
yes i know it’s a ridiculous amount of control where it’s possibly not needed, but I’ve been manipulating my network for so long and have detailed info of network usage already in place, this would just give me further control on my growing network And the number of devices is unlikely to go down any time soon
appreciate any opinions, suggestions
Last edited: