Maximum IP range of router

I believe the DHCP on that router provides 50 addresses, from 192.168.1.100 through 149

Linksys normally provides that info ont the status/localnetwork page of the router setup.

I found the setting. RBM was correct. The starting address is

So if I statically assign my Linux machine (which sits behind this router) 192.168.1.151, will I continue to be able to route to there?

Thanks, - Dave

Pen wrote:

You should be able to assign static addresses from 192.168.1.2 through 99 and then from 151 to the subnet mask 255, (I believe)

If the router is assigned 192.168.1.1, and you set the DHCP pool to start at 192.168.1.2, then you can have 254 assigned address, but...according to

The usable range is from 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.254.

The reason the DHCP range default is only 50 - is so you use some addresses as static addresses (like servers, printers, etc).

If you don't want to use, or don't need to use static ip addresses - you can set the DHCP range from 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.254

Correct.

Personally, I use a "schema" for my static ip addresses:

Servers start at 192.168.1.10 to 192.168.1.29

Printers start at 192.168.1.30 to 192.168.1.49

Access points start at 192.168.1.50 to 192.168.1.69

Other tcpip appliances network drives, etc start at 192.168.1.70 to

and I maintain a hosts files and distribute this to all hosts.

decaturtxcowboy hath wroth:

Actually, it's less than 100 when tested. See:

When NAT routing behind a single IP address it can really be limited unless there's an internal proxy handling the HTTP requests. Otherwise the router runs out of available ports. This comes as a rude surprise when someone in a medium-sized office tries to cheap out and use a SoHo router behind a single IP address. Not that it applies to this thread however.

Are you not the administrator of this box? If not, then don't go setting IP addresses without consulting with the admin. You may end up stepping on someone else's address. Pings are not a reliable way to check for available addresses, as many firewall products are (rightly) configured to not answer ICMP pings.