192.168.0.0 vs. 192.168.1.0

192.168.0.0 vs. 192.168.1.0

Post by Matt Mea » Wed, 07 Jun 2000 04:00:00



what's the difference? speed improvements? latency improvements? does it
have to do with the way the TCP/IP stack is designed?
for years i have been using the ".0.0 range, but lately i see everyone using
the ".1.0 range.
 
 
 

192.168.0.0 vs. 192.168.1.0

Post by Matthew Gat » Wed, 07 Jun 2000 04:00:00


It's like the difference between spelling one's name differently...
none.


>what's the difference? speed improvements? latency improvements? does it
>have to do with the way the TCP/IP stack is designed?
>for years i have been using the ".0.0 range, but lately i see everyone using
>the ".1.0 range.

--
~MGatto~

"Tech support?!!??! We don't need no stekin tech support!?!"
Support the anti-spam movement; see <http://www.cauce.org/>

 
 
 

192.168.0.0 vs. 192.168.1.0

Post by Equin » Thu, 08 Jun 2000 04:00:00




Quote:> what's the difference? speed improvements? latency improvements? does it
> have to do with the way the TCP/IP stack is designed?
> for years i have been using the ".0.0 range, but lately i see everyone using
> the ".1.0 range.

All of the above.  As that third byte of the address goes higher,
latency goes way down, and connection speeds go up.  Go for some real
speed like I do.  Use 192.168.69.0 for your local network.  I would go
even higher, but I've already burned up three network cards that way.

:)

Seriously, there's no difference.  You could just as easily use
10.*.*.*, or one of the private class B address ranges (which I don't
remember at the moment).

--Russell

------------------------
email (spam-disabled):
rdh *at* dibbs *dot* net

 
 
 

192.168.0.0 vs. 192.168.1.0

Post by Matt Mea » Fri, 09 Jun 2000 04:00:00


oh crap, guess i better not up the 3rd byte, i might destroy my network
card!   =P




> > what's the difference? speed improvements? latency improvements? does it
> > have to do with the way the TCP/IP stack is designed?
> > for years i have been using the ".0.0 range, but lately i see everyone
using
> > the ".1.0 range.

> All of the above.  As that third byte of the address goes higher,
> latency goes way down, and connection speeds go up.  Go for some real
> speed like I do.  Use 192.168.69.0 for your local network.  I would go
> even higher, but I've already burned up three network cards that way.

> :)

> Seriously, there's no difference.  You could just as easily use
> 10.*.*.*, or one of the private class B address ranges (which I don't
> remember at the moment).

> --Russell

> ------------------------
> email (spam-disabled):
> rdh *at* dibbs *dot* net

 
 
 

192.168.0.0 vs. 192.168.1.0

Post by Rootma » Fri, 09 Jun 2000 04:00:00


Not ONE bit of difference, it probably has more to do with the 192.168.1
being stuck in the back of peoples heads when they go to set up a
private network then anything else.

It MAY have to do with the fact that MS using the infamous (different
way to spell sucky :)  ) Internet Connection Sharing uses the
192.168.0.X subnet and Linux users not wanting to tarnish the appearance
of their networks choose the 192.168.1.X subnet instead, if only to
prove the clear superiority of Linux over Windoz by the significant
numberical supremecy to the .1 subnet. "Nya, Nya, Bill Gates, we're
better than you are" :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Quote:> what's the difference? speed improvements? latency improvements? does
it
> have to do with the way the TCP/IP stack is designed?
> for years i have been using the ".0.0 range, but lately i see everyone
using
> the ".1.0 range.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
 
 
 

192.168.0.0 vs. 192.168.1.0

Post by Robie Bas » Fri, 09 Jun 2000 04:00:00


On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 17:04:42 GMT, Matt Mead said:

>oh crap, guess i better not up the 3rd byte, i might destroy my network
>card!   =P





>> > what's the difference? speed improvements? latency improvements? does it
>> > have to do with the way the TCP/IP stack is designed?
>> > for years i have been using the ".0.0 range, but lately i see everyone
>using
>> > the ".1.0 range.

>> All of the above.  As that third byte of the address goes higher,
>> latency goes way down, and connection speeds go up.  Go for some real
>> speed like I do.  Use 192.168.69.0 for your local network.  I would go
>> even higher, but I've already burned up three network cards that way.

>> :)

>> Seriously, there's no difference.  You could just as easily use
>> 10.*.*.*, or one of the private class B address ranges (which I don't
>> remember at the moment).

Well, the more bit transitions (01010101 rather than 10000001), the
more likely it is to be picked up well? Seriously, I was reading about
this somewhere recently (can't remember where), although this applies
to the data being sent as well of course.

Robie.
--

 
 
 

1. From:192.168.0.101 TO:192.168.0.xxx VIA:192.168.2.1 ?

Hi,

My home network is configured as follows:  an iMac G3 gets the
Internet connection from dial-up (!) and shares it through its en0
interface on 192.168.2.1 (a static, pre-defined setting on MacOS X
10.4 for sharing an Internet connection).  en0 also has an IP of:
192.168.0.101 as shown below:

en0: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,SMART,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
        inet6 fe80::20a:27ff:feab:3692%en0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4
        inet 192.168.0.101 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
        inet 192.168.2.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.2.255
        ether 00:0a:27:ab:36:92
        media: autoselect (100baseTX <full-duplex>) status: active
        supported media: 10baseT/UTP 10baseT/UTP <full-duplex>
100baseTX 100baseTX <full-duplex> autoselect autosel

From en0, a crossover cable goes into a DLink DI-624 router on its WAN
connector.  DI-624 (192.168.0.1) then gives dynamic IPs from
192.168.0.2- 192.168.0.255.  Computers are all able to share their
resources and to go on the Internet.

The problem is that the iMac G3 cannot communicate with the other
machines on 192.168.0.x and I'd like to know if there is a way around
it?

Thanks.

2. imwheel

3. 192.168.0.* vs 192.168.1.*

4. Help: Connecting SCO TCP -> TIA Host

5. Using 192.168.0 versus 192.168.1

6. Modem problem, stty I/O error

7. Browsing 192.168.0.23 returns 192.168.0.11, why?

8. **BRAND NEW**Texel CD-ROM Drives ***DIRT CHEAP***!!!

9. Joining 192.168.1.* to 192.168.1.* with filtering for only MS SQL Server?

10. NAT Interface 192.168.1.x External 192.168.1.x Possible?

11. Routing Linux 192.168.10.x network to Dlink router on 192.168.1.x network

12. Connection attempt to TCP 192.168.0.13:3128 from 192.168.0.12:2050

13. packets to 192.168.1.255 UDP