Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: Cork Soaker <Thunderbird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:39:28 +0100
Bit Twister wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:28:24 +0200, Antonio Macchi wrote:why does *everybody* use 192.168.0.1, and not simpler 10.0.0.1?
Well, 192.168.x.x would be for the home user's lan, and 10.0.x.x could
be used by the ISP. No clashes and any misconfiguration of
192.168.x.x should not travel past the ISP gateway.
I know at least one ISP using 10.x.x.x. so any misconfiguration of
10.x.x.x by home users might cause network troubles.
I would feel a little bit safer using 192.168.x.x
Yup, O2 Broadband (Be) use 10.x, I'm thankful I've always used 192.
192.168 - yeah, that's tough to remember.
.
- References:
- 192.168 - why?
- From: Antonio Macchi
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: Bit Twister
- 192.168 - why?
- Prev by Date: Re: 192.168 - why?
- Next by Date: iptables and post-NAT filtering
- Previous by thread: Re: 192.168 - why?
- Next by thread: Re: 192.168 - why?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
