The provider issued for the network a range of addresses 195.223.251.160/29 . The gateway address issued by the provider is 195.223.251.161 . I need to assign IP addresses to the following devices: computer, server, 3 IP cameras, IP phone.

I reasoned as follows: based on the mask, addresses from 195.223.251.161 to 195.223.251.167 are available to 195.223.251.167 . In this case, 195.223.251.167 is a broadcast one, and it cannot be used, while 195.223.251.161 occupied by a gateway.

Therefore, I can really use only addresses from 195.223.251.162 and up to 195.223.251.166 . That is, I only have 5 addresses available, and IP devices need to be assigned to 6 devices.

Am I right about the definition of available IP addresses?
Is it really not possible to assign IP addresses to all 6 devices?

    2 answers 2

    Well, the computer can be removed for the server, which will be a router for it. I suggest just trying to use the 167 address, on the Internet no one will consider it Broadcast. Is that your provider ...

    Try to put 167 let's say on the computer, if the OS starts screaming something about the mask, etc. just expand it to 28 . In this case, he will not be able to see the realists 195.223.251.168/29 because they will get into the mask and he will assume that they are in his LAN. But usually it is not scary, because there surely is another client of your dip, the link with which you don’t need. If you suddenly need it, then it is treated by prescribing routing to this subnet through your 161 gateway. If you get on the Internet with him, then on the other devices you can put the same mask on 28, that they communicated with him normally, without thinking that he was broadcasting

    In most cases, such configurations work fine, although of course they are considered curves.

    PS By the way, the 160 address is the same as yours, although it is considered a network address, but you can also try using it

    • Ok, corrected. What could be the names of the standards, if I propose to violate them :) - Mike
    • Yes, a harsh approach :) But if there is no even a cheap router with a PAT, then there’s no need to bring such a thing ... - Regent

    Unfortunately, yes , you reason correctly.