Re: 192.168 - why?

Antonio Macchi <antonio_macchi@xxxxxxxx> writes:

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

Unless you've got more than 65,000 hosts on your local network, it
doesn't matter. I don't understand how either is more complicated
than the other.

.