Re: 192.168 - why?

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:31:09 -0400, Lew Pitcher <lpitcher@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

Who the *** has thousands of machines at home? I'm a serious geek
and never need more than a dozen address, including vmware session on
my main desktop that aren't using hostonly or NAT.

If you have several hundred thousand machines, you can probably afford a
more sophisticated network than what suffice for a home network.
.

Quantcast