VM IP Address network size

Question

Hello all,
                  I have a quick question on setting up VM's on the cisco UCS or any other virtual server type system.
Our server team claim that a dedicated class 'C' address range set up in DHCP is filling quickly and will soon be fully used up by an increasing number of virtual servers.
So our network team has suggested that we could just set up another routed VLAN to accommodate any further growth.
Our server team then claim that managing other VLANs is too hard and just want a huge supernet range instead.
I'm pretty sure that a large supernet is not a best practice for many reasons but can anyone back up this theory and maybe point out a document that reports this formally.
Thanks in advance.

Answer 1

Yes Reza, but they are saying that it is too hard to create multiple virtual switches to accommodate many subnets/VLANs as their server requirements grow. On the extreme side of the argument they are saying why not just give us 65,000 addresses and then we only need one virtual switch configured within their VM environment.
I am saying that that is not best practice and the limit should be a /24 subnet, and if they need more subnets then create more virtual switches per VLAN and so be it.
I'm not a VM guru so I'm just guessing that you must be able to manage multiple VLANs or subnets without having a single supernet which goes against IP addressing best practice ???