Weird querry

[delco007]

Hello everybody
Somebody asked me this question a few days back and i still dont have the answer ,
whats is the maximum no of computers that can be on a network ?
whats is the maximum no of computers that can be on a domain ?

Is there any limit on the bo of computers on a domian/network ?


Guru

 

[RiverDog]

No real limit, the internet is a network. That said you can have a limit on the tcp/ip stack depending on the way it's setup. for example a 192.168.x.x class c network can have 254 network nodes max

 

[p0lar]

Not that this is the only one, but another realistic limit is the amount of RAM necessary to hold such a vast quantity of ARP entries in cache. ~4.3 billion potential entries (for IPv4 anyway) x amount of RAM necessary per entry = something extremely large. Other practical limits exist as well, broadcast limitations, multicast overlap, etc. It would be interesting to test such an environment. 😀

I think there are probably two answers to the query: A practical limit and a theoretical limit. Theoretical is easy, practical probably has too many factors to really consider at length past personal experience.

 

[JackMDS]

This is one these type of questions that can not really answered correctly without a Framwork.

 

[RiverDog]

Originally posted by: p0lar
Not that this is the only one, but another realistic limit is the amount of RAM necessary to hold such a vast quantity of ARP entries in cache. ~4.3 billion potential entries (for IPv4 anyway) x amount of RAM necessary per entry = something extremely large. Other practical limits exist as well, broadcast limitations, multicast overlap, etc. It would be interesting to test such an environment. 😀

I think there are probably two answers to the query: A practical limit and a theoretical limit. Theoretical is easy, practical probably has too many factors to really consider at length past personal experience.

Can't even imagine that let alone when IPv6 hit full stride.

 

[p0lar]

Originally posted by: RiverDog
Can't even imagine that let alone when IPv6 hit full stride.

Oh yeah, not even to mention the notion of how you would physically switch all that traffic. There are so many gotchas to think about, heh.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: p0lar

Originally posted by: RiverDog
Can't even imagine that let alone when IPv6 hit full stride.

Oh yeah, not even to mention the notion of how you would physically switch all that traffic. There are so many gotchas to think about, heh.

psshh, you route/switch it all in hardware. No biggie.

And IPV6 isn't going to be here anytime soon. No need.

 

[p0lar]

Originally posted by: spidey07
And IPV6 isn't going to be here anytime soon. No need.

You know, I keep telling myself the same thing (no reason not to believe so -- also no real incentive to migrate to IPv6), but if I take a cross-sample of the consulting work I've done in the last quarter, I've had a surprisingly higher number of inquisitions. Any others noticing this? I'm not saying it's a troubling trend, just curious if it's perhaps a fluke.

Sorry to hijack the thread there.. 🙂

 

[jlazzaro]

It's definately something people need to be aware of, but deployement is more so dependant on the types of service being offered, and how they related to addressing requirements.

For now I think it's mostly a buzz word. You hear all this talk about it, but unless your at a major service provider, a LARGE organization, or overseas (asia-pacific), its not something you're going to deal with in the short / mid term.

None the less, organizations need to know how the decisions / purchases today are going to affect them down the road. No one ever gets in trouble for future proofing!

edit: as a side note, we recieved our IPv6 ranges from ARIN last week 😛

 

[RiverDog]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: p0lar

Originally posted by: RiverDog
Can't even imagine that let alone when IPv6 hit full stride.

Oh yeah, not even to mention the notion of how you would physically switch all that traffic. There are so many gotchas to think about, heh.

psshh, you route/switch it all in hardware. No biggie.

And IPV6 isn't going to be here anytime soon. No need.

2008 isn't very far off.

Link

The DoD has announced plans to fully transition to IPv6 by
fiscal year 2008.
In 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommended to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) that other federal agencies should follow DoD?s lead
and begin planning for a move to IPv6 [55]. Following this, it was announced that June
2008 was the deadline for all agencies to support IPv6 in their operational networks [56].

 

[jlazzaro]

supporting ipv6 and fully transitioning are 2 different things. i work for the DoD, and 2008 is NOT going to happen. 2010+ is more realistic...

 

[delco007]

Originally posted by: RiverDog
No real limit, the internet is a network. That said you can have a limit on the tcp/ip stack depending on the way it's setup. for example a 192.168.x.x class c network can have 254 network nodes max

i had read somewhere that we can do subnetting to increase the no of nodes or computers on a network and if that is true then the no of nodes that we can have for such a network should be more than 254 . Am i right ??

Guru

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: delco007

Originally posted by: RiverDog
No real limit, the internet is a network. That said you can have a limit on the tcp/ip stack depending on the way it's setup. for example a 192.168.x.x class c network can have 254 network nodes max

i had read somewhere that we can do subnetting to increase the no of nodes or computers on a network and if that is true then the no of nodes that we can have for such a network should be more than 254 . Am i right ??

Guru

it depends. As stated earlier, the answer is always "it depends".


You could run a class A private range of 10.0.0.0/8 and have 2^24 IP's. Subnetting does no increase the number of IP's, in fact, it reduces it. What it does is allow for separating up/managing of things better. You could supernet an IP, but if you don't get subnetting alot, then lets leave that idea alone.