Cisco didn’t respond but HP told me a modern switched net like ours, (1 Gig backbone, 100 Mbit to clients, windows 2000 and XP), shouldn’t have more than 300 nodes on a specific subnet. On our main campus our /22 nets are suffering from excessive broadcasts. Your planned /23 net is half as big as the ones I am trying to get rid of.

Given this response, I will be limiting each subnet to class C. I suggest you follow a similar model and use two class C subnets connected by a router or layer 3 switch. You can avoid VLANs if you wish by partitioning physically with each switch on a specific subnet. This a more complex design than you have contemplated but it will allow cleaner growth. If you do pull the mask out to supernet two class C nets together, keep a watch on your broadcast traffic. As other responses suggested, there is no reason you need to switch to the 172.16 range with modern operating systems.
rt

Thanks for the response. With that said, do you think I would really see that much of an impact with using the 172.16.30.0 subnet with a 255.255.254.0 mask. I do not plan on this getting any bigger at least with this office and I can’t even see it using much of the extra range. All my switches are 3560′s and I am fine with keeping the subnets small, it is just not at this moment in time (a lot going on)