Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Carlos E. R." Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2026 13:38:36 +0200 Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <114fdad$1trk7$1@news1.tnib.de> <114fuuv$1v1g1$1@news1.tnib.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net Q8aVdUjFHEE79Gb/U5HYdgj6facP6nCJwVrEwtzvGgfFpT9OYn Cancel-Lock: sha1:+Zgy2q5c3T8V90F11fKjHhi9Bi8= sha256:KlrRa3z3xNdia9XgEnmYzQIEiSs9xH4RPq17N0lVtbs= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <114fuuv$1v1g1$1@news1.tnib.de> Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:89324 On 2026-07-30 18:43, Marc Haber wrote: > "Carlos E. R." wrote: >> On 2026-07-30 13:42, Marc Haber wrote: >>> "Carlos E. R." wrote: >>>> eth0: flags=4163 mtu 1500 >>>> inet 192.168.2.9 netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast 192.168.255.255 >>> >>> Using the entire 192.168.0.0/16 range for a single home network is a >>> sure sign of a person not knowing too much about networking or an >>> incompetent ISP. >> >> The ISP configures the router so that it is mandatory to use >> 192.168.1.*, and they take a good chunk of it for their own usage. I >> have no recourse but using this non standard network. I use 192.168.2 >> for dhcp assignments. > > With a /16 Netmask, covering the entire 192.168 RFC 1918 range, as if > we have plenty of IPv4 addresses? > > Please, let me see that ISPs customer documentation. They do have it > online, don't they? I'm familiar with that industry for nearly 30 > years and have never seen a setup like that. It sounds so brain-dead > that my first idea was that you haven't understood. There is no documentation. They keep it secret. What is known is by reverse engineering. -- Cheers, Carlos E.R. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;