Hi, I'm a Moderator for this topic. I've been working hard to find a Professional to assist you right away, but sometimes finding the right Professional can take a little longer than expected.
I wonder whether you're ok with continuing to wait for an answer. If you are, please let me know and I will continue my search. If not, feel free to let me know and I will cancel this question for you. Thank you!
David, Wow, thank you. However, I jumped the gun a bit. Our question is slightly different. (less individs in SF). Not a problem to re-issue funds again. You did an excellent job. I just ran out of time and needed the breakdown this time around. See below for question. Thanks. Please let me know what I need to do next.
XUMC is has the WAN links in place to the new locations in the Houston Region. XMUC currently has 2 other Regions San Francisco and Denver. Originally, XMUC was only in one region (San Francisco). The previous consultant did a poor job with the integration resulting in a poor IP address scheme as a result routing tables at the summarization points and at the San Francisco Campus are very large. In addition, no VLAN structure was developed to isolate broadcast traffic. There are 4 main departments in XUMC: sales, finance, human resources, and research and development. Also, there has been some concern that the WAN transport was not able to accommodate the network traffic. Finally, all addresses in the network are statically assigned resulting in high administration overhead when changes are needed XUMC would like this changed to lower administrative overhead.
Number of IP Addresses Required
Remote Office 1
Remote Office 2
Remote Office 3
Provide a document that addresses all issues described above.
The document should contain:
tks Dave. I'm good with MS, jes took the run on CCNA routers information. Embarrasing to ask for help, yes. I'll review all. Again, thank you. -btw- how do you get a $$ tip? v/r, Marc
David, I understand the IP breakout and summarization scheme. Thanks. however, this class is more routers. I'm not sure what the IP's would be for the site routers utilizing /30 while part of the subnet? You provided:
San Francisco 172.16.0.0 – 172.16.7.255/27 64 30 1920
Denver 172.16.8.0 – 172.16.11.255/27 32 30 960
Houston 172.16.12.0 – 172.16.13.255/27 16 30 480
Then, in order to decrease the size of the network routing tables, the following route summarization will be used with OSPF:
Route to San Francisco 172.16.0.0 255.255.192.0
Route to Denver 172.16.16.8.0 255.255.224.0
Route to Houston 172.16.12.0 255.255.240.0
The subnet range for each site location includes an overage of IP addresses for immediate and future network expansion. (Cisco, 2012) All remote offices will be assigned subnets from within the subnet and IP address ranges assigned to the major campus and region with which they are associated and to which they connect.
yes, thank you. One other ques and I'll leave you alone. -Summarization routes- you stated:
(1) Route to San Francisco 172.16.0.0 255.255.192.0
(2) Route to Denver 172.16.16.8.0 255.255.224.0
(3) Route to Houston 172.16.12.0 255.255.240.0
Ques: Route to SF is the route summarization I would place at the SF router? Likewise, for route to Denver (placed at Denver router. And then, route to Houston, placed at the Houston router summarization point? Thanks Dave for the assist.