Balance305 additional LAN IP Address / Network

Dear all good afternoon,

we would like to know more about adding multiple LANs with the “Additional Subnet” feature under:
LAN > Network Settings > ? > additional LAN IP Address / Network

We cannot setup VLANs at the moment and we are running out of IP addresses.
Expanding the existing LAN, eg. by changing the Subnet Mask from /24 to /23 is not feasible as several clients have their IP manually set and changing the broadcast address causes a series of disruptions.

Currently we have a .100.0/24 net and we have a number of devices which could be moved to a different LAN address as long as they keep “seeing each other”, so we thought of using the feature to add another untagged LAN .200.0/24 without DHCP to host those devices and free a number of IP addresses on the .100.0/24 network for feature clients.

Are there any known drawbacks in using that function?
Is it feasible for our goal?

Thanks for your help and sory if this was already discussed,


Hi Gian_SP

Could you tell us why you can’t say you can’t configure VLAN at this time? To the LAN of the Peplink that you have connected? Is a small drawing of the network topology possible?


at the moment on the LAN side of the Peplink we cannot implement VLANs, long story short because we don’t have the feasible hardware for it.
Here’s a sketch of the network topology:

Aside of discussing the Network Topology could you please let me know more regarding the the “Additional Subnet” tool?

Thanks for support,


The “additional subnet” feature would not be recommended for this scenario as the two networks would not see each other. Instead you could use port-based VLANs without the need for VLAN tagging. No special hardware is needed and you can route between networks.

Thank you Ron!

It would be correct for clients on the two subnets not to see each other. This provided that each of them correctly sees the gateway which would be, as I understand, the same physical interface but with 2 different IP addresses.
eg: for clients of the 100.0 subnet for clients on the 200.0 subnet
is this correct?

The addresses related to the IP range for DHCP are all belonging to the 100.0/24 subnet. Could I also add devices from the 200.0/24 subnet to the DHCP Reservation list? (just for having listed them on the Firewall and applying QoS rules)

Are there any known drawbacks in using this function?

Regarding your solution, to use port-based VLANs I think I should first configure a second LAN in: LAN> Network Settings> New LAN but at that point it asks me for a VLAN ID necessarily between 1 and 4094, so I cannot leave this second VLAN untagged.

Should I tag this VLAN and then route this traffic to the native VLAN (100.0/24 in the example)?

Thanks for your time,


Correct, IP address would be the default gateway for clients on the 100.0 subnet and for clients on the 200.0 subnet.

You can also add devices from the 200.0/24 subnet to the DHCP Reservation list.

Are there any known drawbacks in using this function? Just know that this traffic is routed between networks on the same physical interface and it is managed with internal firewall rules.

The VLAN would be tagged, however the LAN port used for the 200.0 subnet would be configured as “access” so VLAN tagging is not required when plugged into that port.

1 Like