Very Computer

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.

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/>

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

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

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.

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.
--

Very Computer

192.168.0.0 vs. 192.168.1.0

192.168.0.0 vs. 192.168.1.0

192.168.0.0 vs. 192.168.1.0

192.168.0.0 vs. 192.168.1.0

192.168.0.0 vs. 192.168.1.0

192.168.0.0 vs. 192.168.1.0

192.168.0.0 vs. 192.168.1.0