On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Kevin wrote:
> > Why are you messing around with the 'big boys'..the
> > ten ten thing, when 192.168.0.x is all a home user
> > needs. It allows up to 254 users! Do you have that
> > many?? From what I gathered, and this is a few months
> > back, you have to set up too much junk in the
> > 'biggies'..the ten ten etc networks. It was simple to
> > setup the 192.xxxx stuff.
>
> Heh, ec is right. However, as Forrest Gump might say "RFC1918 is as
> RFC1918 does." For the typing challenged (like me) it's easier to type
> 10.0.0.1 than 192.168.0.1. Private is private. As long as it's
> subnet'd down to a /24 who cares?
Agreed. 'ec', remember that the 192.168.x.x block is actually a whole /16
in RFC1918. Thus, it has 65,536 possible usable addresses. Like Kevin
said, if you are netmasking it down to a /24 (or even smaller), it does
not matter at all which RFC1918 block you are using. Thus, all else being
equal, why not just use the block with the least amount of typing? :)
Just for reference, the RFC1918 blocks are:
192.168/16
172.16/12
10/8
More details at:
http://www.geektools.com/rfc/rfc1918.txt
~Jay
--
..
.. Jay Jacobson
.. Edgeos, Inc. - 480.961.5996 -
http://www.edgeos.com
..
.. Network Security Auditing and
.. Vulnerability Assessment Managed Services
..
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)