Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: Cork Soaker <Thunderbird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:37:11 +0100
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
Antonio Macchi <antonio_macchi@xxxxxxxx> writes:
available IP addressesm just like a 192.168.0.0/24 net wouldit's right, but you can can use 10.0.0.0/24 too....
have. And why not? What's the point in having an huge address space
if you're only ever going to use a tiny fraction of it?
and, very important, 10.0.0.0 is more more easy to digit/learn/remeber
than 192.168... or 172.16
Please tell me you're joking.
LOL
.
- References:
- 192.168 - why?
- From: Antonio Macchi
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: KR
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: Antonio Macchi
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: KR
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: Antonio Macchi
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: Joe Pfeiffer
- 192.168 - why?
- Prev by Date: Running NISTNet in bridge mode -- Please Help
- Next by Date: Re: 192.168 - why?
- Previous by thread: Re: 192.168 - why?
- Next by thread: Re: 192.168 - why?
- Index(es):