Message boards :
Technical News :
Evolution (Feb 09 2009)
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2
Author | Message |
---|---|
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
I've been using 192.168.10.0/8 for a while now. Its different enough from home networks that I don't run into problems, but still in the Class C range. Sure, you can always subnet a Class A or Class B range, but I'm keeping it simple for now. I'm unaware that any entity is entitle to 192.168.10/8 exclusively since they are supposed to be open for private use. In fact, 192.168/16 is supposed to be open and completely inside RFC1918, which would include 192.168.10/8. Classful routing is dead, so there is no practical difference between 192.168.10.0/24 and 10.10.10.0/24. Very true, with the exception that you have to configure subnetting manually for the Class A Address to be /24, whereas 192.168.10.0 is /24 by default since it is a Class C Address. One does not have to mess with subnetting that way. Even so, I am working for a very small company these days, so changing the entire network to a Class A Address instead of a Class C would be quite easy. I just prefer not to do it. |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
The 169.254.x.x block is reserved for a different purpose, and under a different RFC. Indeed, each network is unique. Some network management practices work well in some environments, and not so well in others. In fact, this is one of the main reasons why I prefer not to offer advice to Matt, because what works well for my network may not be so efficient for his own setup. I think this applies to areas beyond physical network layout as well, such as the actual configuration and setup of each server. |
1mp0£173 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 8423 Credit: 356,897 RAC: 0 |
The 192.168.0.0 block defined in RFC-1918 is a /16. 192.168.10.0/8 includes 192.1.0.0/16 which belongs to BBN, and 192.2.0.0/16 which belongs to Level3. I didn't look any farther, but it is perfectly okay to allocate through 192.167.255.255 and from 192.169.0.0 on up. |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20084 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
... 192.168.10/8 exclusively since they are supposed to be open for private use. In fact, 192.168/16 is supposed to be open and completely inside RFC1918, which would include 192.168.10/8. ... A slight case of reversed numbers?... The private network block is "192.168.0.0/16" (65536 ip addresses). The 'entire internet' is "0.0.0.0/0". A 256 ip addresses section is such as "192.168.0.0/24". A "/8" gives (32-8)^2 = (24)^2 = 16777216 ip addresses. The "/n" is an addressing bit mask. Hence why in another net[work bit]mask convention you get common bit masks such as 255.255.255.0 ( = "/24" ). ... And then there is ipV6. No NAT needed. But when? If ever? Do we need a deadline date such as for moving from analog to digital TV broadcasts?... Happy surfing! Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
A slight case of reversed numbers?... Not reversed numbers, but my failure to move the netmask the right way, partially from being tired last night (and partially from having a very pre-occupied brain lately) when I posted. In fact, I should have stated that I use 192.168.10.0/24, not /8. My error should have been obvious because you can't use 192.168.10/8. If you have /8 CIDR, you can only use the first octet, i.e. 192.x.x.x. 192.168.10.0/8 is too specific and would be invalid. |
1mp0£173 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 8423 Credit: 356,897 RAC: 0 |
A slight case of reversed numbers?... Depends on if you're trying to describe just the network, or a machine that exists on the network and the network at the same time. After all, when you type "192.168.10.254" and "255.255.255.0" into the IP settings, you are doing just that -- entering the machine number (254) and the network number (192.168.10) at the same time. Which I'm sure you know -- but we do have others reading along. For the record, I use 172.20.42.0/24 for much the same reasons. I like the middle block because most everyone else uses the first one, or the last one. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.