Very Computer

by **Bill Crip** » Fri, 02 Jun 2000 04:00:00

I have a question regarding LAN addresses. As I understand it, the addresses
192.168.x.x are all available for use on a LAN and are never treated as "real"
by the rest of the Internet. When I first setup the LAN at my office I used
192.168.0.1, then 2, and 3. As the network grew I started organizing the
addresses in more meaningful clumps but always starting with 192.168.0. It
seems these days that most examples of LAN address in the HOWTO's etc. use
192.168.1.x. Is there some current convention that treats the zero group as
special in some way? I've never had trouble with it, but might using zero
one day lead to a problem?

Thanks,
Bill

by **Duncan Simps** » Fri, 02 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Quote:>I have a question regarding LAN addresses. As I understand it, the addresses
>192.168.x.x are all available for use on a LAN and are never treated as "real"
>by the rest of the Internet. When I first setup the LAN at my office I used
>192.168.0.1, then 2, and 3. As the network grew I started organizing the
>addresses in more meaningful clumps but always starting with 192.168.0. It
>seems these days that most examples of LAN address in the HOWTO's etc. use
>192.168.1.x. Is there some current convention that treats the zero group as
>special in some way? I've never had trouble with it, but might using zero
>one day lead to a problem?

Some systems, the number of which is rapidly dwindling do like like
subnet 0 because the network address 192.168.0.0 confuses their
logic. This bug is now rare, even M$ systems are not affected. Most
people are paraniod and use avoid network numbers edning in 0s if they
have bags of IP space choose from. Assuming you have less than 65000
computers you should not need to use network 0.

--
Duncan (-:
"software industry, the: unique industry where selling substandard goods is
legal and you can charge extra for fixing the problems."

by **Robie Bas** » Sun, 04 Jun 2000 04:00:00

On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 14:58:44 GMT, Bill Cripe said:

Quote:>I have a question regarding LAN addresses. As I understand it, the addresses
>192.168.x.x are all available for use on a LAN and are never treated as "real"
>by the rest of the Internet. When I first setup the LAN at my office I used
>192.168.0.1, then 2, and 3. As the network grew I started organizing the
>addresses in more meaningful clumps but always starting with 192.168.0. It
>seems these days that most examples of LAN address in the HOWTO's etc. use
>192.168.1.x. Is there some current convention that treats the zero group as
>special in some way? I've never had trouble with it, but might using zero
>one day lead to a problem?

No; there's no problem. However, 192.168.0.0 is a problem.

Given your subnet which you define, the first and last address refer
to the network and broadcast, all the others may be used.

192.168.0.x is a whole subnet, so the 0 is all right.

Does anyone care to correct me?

Robie.
--

by **Frederic Fau** » Tue, 06 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Quote:>On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 14:58:44 GMT, Bill Cripe said:
>>When I first setup the LAN at my office I used
>>192.168.0.1, then 2, and 3. As the network grew I started organizing the
>>addresses in more meaningful clumps but always starting with 192.168.0.
>Does anyone care to correct me?

No problem, but before your office gets too big and Bill needs to have
more than 254 hosts, it'd be safer to switch to a bigger scheme,
either using the last two octets for hosts (eg. 192.168.x.x, and use
the last two for hosts, or switch to the other two private ranges
172.16/31.x.x or 10.x.x.x). Personnally, I'd go with the 10.x.x.x
range, using the second octet to specify the network, eg. 10.5 for the
sixth network in the organization, and use the last two octets for
hosts in a given location, with netmask 255.255.0.0)

Get a couple of test PCs, hook them up to a hub, and experiment until
you feel comfortable.

HTH
FF.

by **Ross Vandegrif** » Fri, 09 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Bill,

I think, though eat this with a tablespoon of salt, that the
192.168.1.0/24 is the non-routing class C. This implies that 192.168.0.0
is a real Internet address. FYI, the other non-routing addresses are
10.0.0.0/8 (non-routing class A) and 172.16.0.0/16 (non-routing class B).
If someone out there knows otherwise please speak up, and cc me - I'm not
100% on all of this either.

Ross

> I have a question regarding LAN addresses. As I understand it, the addresses
> 192.168.x.x are all available for use on a LAN and are never treated as "real"
> by the rest of the Internet. When I first setup the LAN at my office I used
> 192.168.0.1, then 2, and 3. As the network grew I started organizing the
> addresses in more meaningful clumps but always starting with 192.168.0. It
> seems these days that most examples of LAN address in the HOWTO's etc. use
> 192.168.1.x. Is there some current convention that treats the zero group as
> special in some way? I've never had trouble with it, but might using zero
> one day lead to a problem?

> Thanks,
> Bill

by **Michael Nadle** » Fri, 09 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Ross:

Unroutable networks, known as "private internets" are specified in RFC1918. The
class C network specification, interestingly enough, is 192.168.0.0/16 -- which
makes 192.168.0.0 be unroutable also. See:

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1918.html

So, Bill should never have a problem using 192.168.0.x addresses.

> Bill,

> I think, though eat this with a tablespoon of salt, that the
> 192.168.1.0/24 is the non-routing class C. This implies that 192.168.0.0
> is a real Internet address. FYI, the other non-routing addresses are
> 10.0.0.0/8 (non-routing class A) and 172.16.0.0/16 (non-routing class B).
> If someone out there knows otherwise please speak up, and cc me - I'm not
> 100% on all of this either.

> Ross

> > I have a question regarding LAN addresses. As I understand it, the addresses
> > 192.168.x.x are all available for use on a LAN and are never treated as "real"
> > by the rest of the Internet. When I first setup the LAN at my office I used
> > 192.168.0.1, then 2, and 3. As the network grew I started organizing the
> > addresses in more meaningful clumps but always starting with 192.168.0. It
> > seems these days that most examples of LAN address in the HOWTO's etc. use
> > 192.168.1.x. Is there some current convention that treats the zero group as
> > special in some way? I've never had trouble with it, but might using zero
> > one day lead to a problem?

> > Thanks,
> > Bill

by **M. Buchenried** » Sat, 10 Jun 2000 04:00:00

>Bill,
> I think, though eat this with a tablespoon of salt,

Eat this with a ton of salt, indeed.

Quote:>that the
>192.168.1.0/24 is the non-routing class C.

[...]

Rubbish. Please read RFC 1918 and thou willst be enlightened.

Michael
--

Lumber Cartel Unit #456 (TINLC) & Official Netscum
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't munge your address.

Very Computer

Using 192.168.0 versus 192.168.1

Using 192.168.0 versus 192.168.1

Using 192.168.0 versus 192.168.1

Using 192.168.0 versus 192.168.1

Using 192.168.0 versus 192.168.1

Using 192.168.0 versus 192.168.1

Using 192.168.0 versus 192.168.1

Using 192.168.0 versus 192.168.1