Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

Computers on LAN

What is the maximum number of personal computers that should be put on a single subnet? What is the maximum number of personal computers that can be connected to a switch?

2 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS

Accepted Solutions
Hall of Fame Super Blue

Re: Computers on LAN

The general practice is to use one subnet per vlan. When you have separate vlans you need routed interfaces to route traffic between them. It is much easier to control traffic going from one vlan to another with a L3 access-list.

Also many virus rely on broadcasting and broadcasts do not by default go between vlans but a broadcast will be sent to all machines within the same vlan.

HTH

Jon

Super Bronze

Re: Computers on LAN

As Jon notes, /24 (254 hosts) is often the common max. One reason for this, it also corresponded to classful addressing using a class "C" address. (I.e. the way grandpa did it.)

Classless addressing, which makes it easier to size your network subnets however you desire, brings with it, as Jon also notes, this common question.

Often people wonder, why can't we just have one huge subnet, or any number of hosts.

In theory, we could place every host in the world on one network segment (Ethernet MACs handle it), in practice there are reasons why this doesn't work. Jon also touched on a recent one, containment of host infections and/or implementation of subnet-to-subnet security. However, one ongoing issue has been scalability limited by sharing a common physical medium.

Originally, all Ethernet hosts shared the same wire. They see all traffic. If all hosts send/receive very little traffic, quite a few can share the wire. As each becomes busier, not only is there less bandwidth to share, but they also bump into each other trying to obtain it. The solution was reduce the number of hosts per wire. Since even one pair of hosts could saturate a wire, the ideal solution was to only have one host per wire. We call this Ethernet switching.

With it, one might assume we can now have all hosts on a shared subnet, but we have the problem of broadcasts. Broadcasts are intended to be visible to all hosts, although most hosts don't do anything with the information seen. It does, though, still make for a scalability issue.

To make things even more complex, the level of "normal" broadcast traffic often varies based on the type of hosts. For instance, Windows hosts, using Netbios/NetBEUI, used to be very broadcast chatty, so you often found the need to limit their number on a shared segment more so then pure IP hosts.

With all the forgoing, surprisingly, the original class "C" subnet or /24 works well in most cases. However, sometimes you can segment larger, or need to segment smaller, depending on what your hosts are doing.

4 REPLIES
Hall of Fame Super Blue

Re: Computers on LAN

Hi

This question comes up quite often. General agreement seems to be a /24 Class C address for your subnet as the maximum although it does depend on your applications in terms of broadcasts etc. Also the smaller the vlan the less machines get infected within the same vlan. We use /25's where i work.

The maximum number of PC's to connect to a switch. Mainly decided by the hardware unless i am misunderstanding your question. A 48 port switch will allow 48 Pc's unless you connect another switch using one of the 48 ports and connect in another 48 PC's but then they are still on a physcially different switch.

3750's can stack to make one logical switch and the 4500/6500 series switches support multiple modules so you can get more than 48 PC's connected.

HTH

Jon

New Member

Re: Computers on LAN

What do you mean by machinges in the same VLAN getting infected?

Hall of Fame Super Blue

Re: Computers on LAN

The general practice is to use one subnet per vlan. When you have separate vlans you need routed interfaces to route traffic between them. It is much easier to control traffic going from one vlan to another with a L3 access-list.

Also many virus rely on broadcasting and broadcasts do not by default go between vlans but a broadcast will be sent to all machines within the same vlan.

HTH

Jon

Super Bronze

Re: Computers on LAN

As Jon notes, /24 (254 hosts) is often the common max. One reason for this, it also corresponded to classful addressing using a class "C" address. (I.e. the way grandpa did it.)

Classless addressing, which makes it easier to size your network subnets however you desire, brings with it, as Jon also notes, this common question.

Often people wonder, why can't we just have one huge subnet, or any number of hosts.

In theory, we could place every host in the world on one network segment (Ethernet MACs handle it), in practice there are reasons why this doesn't work. Jon also touched on a recent one, containment of host infections and/or implementation of subnet-to-subnet security. However, one ongoing issue has been scalability limited by sharing a common physical medium.

Originally, all Ethernet hosts shared the same wire. They see all traffic. If all hosts send/receive very little traffic, quite a few can share the wire. As each becomes busier, not only is there less bandwidth to share, but they also bump into each other trying to obtain it. The solution was reduce the number of hosts per wire. Since even one pair of hosts could saturate a wire, the ideal solution was to only have one host per wire. We call this Ethernet switching.

With it, one might assume we can now have all hosts on a shared subnet, but we have the problem of broadcasts. Broadcasts are intended to be visible to all hosts, although most hosts don't do anything with the information seen. It does, though, still make for a scalability issue.

To make things even more complex, the level of "normal" broadcast traffic often varies based on the type of hosts. For instance, Windows hosts, using Netbios/NetBEUI, used to be very broadcast chatty, so you often found the need to limit their number on a shared segment more so then pure IP hosts.

With all the forgoing, surprisingly, the original class "C" subnet or /24 works well in most cases. However, sometimes you can segment larger, or need to segment smaller, depending on what your hosts are doing.

143
Views
5
Helpful
4
Replies