Re: 192.168 - why?

In comp.os.linux.networking, Antonio Macchi wrote:

why does *everybody* use 192.168.0.1, and not simpler 10.0.0.1?

imho, 192.168 and 172.16 is unuseful, and unnecessarily complicated


10.x.x.x = 16000000 hosts/networks

192.168.x.x = only 60000 hosts/nets

16000000 is not enough?


how can 192.168 and 182.16 increase? at least 1000000... at least 10%...
nothing.


imho, 10.0.0.1 should be always the favourite



Why?

According to RFC 1918, there are three reserved ranges:
10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 (10/8 prefix)
172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix)
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)

You ask if 16000000 addresses are enough (presumably for a generic private
network), and express the opinion that the other two additional ranges are
not usefull, and are (somehow) unnecessarily complicated.

I submit that, for a typical home network of a handfull of nodes, the 65000+
unique addresses permitted under the 192.168/16 prefix make more sense than
the millions of unique addresses permitted under the 10/8 prefix.

Indeed, many network providers use the 10/8 address space for their own
internal routers; why would anyone want their own private lan to have
conflicts with their downstream network providers?

I say, each to it's own purpose, and ask you "Why use the 10/8 prefix when
the 192.168/16 prefix will do?


--
Lew Pitcher

Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | Registered Linux User #112576
http://pitcher.digitalfreehold.ca/ | GPG public key available by request
---------- Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing. ------


.