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: Sat, 1 Aug 2026 23:04:27 +0200 Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: <114fdad$1trk7$1@news1.tnib.de> <114kq1d$3joo1$1@dont-email.me> <114l17o$2ac1t$1@news1.tnib.de> <114l4n2$3nej4$2@dont-email.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net wMso9a8CIb7Na8k6w5Pa/gy9pAAilbKlskjxz+czEZwvBK/HXB Cancel-Lock: sha1:sJSf8gzF1GwMpWnGgoyXzTraRLA= sha256:vJgbCQXdJnAlJKWNfjaVYbAXdTfNFlG1zJqbDXZ4kvY= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <114l4n2$3nej4$2@dont-email.me> Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:89411 On 2026-08-01 17:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 01/08/2026 15:52, Marc Haber wrote: >> "Carlos E. R." wrote: >>> So, stop saying that `192.168.0.0/16` is wrong, or that 172.16/12 >>> is wrong. >> >> I never did. >> >> I said that it is stupid to use that for a single network. >> >> You're supposed to cut yourself an appropriately sized piece from >> those ranges, > > Says who? > >> and hope that you'll never have to connect to a network that uses the >> same piece, > > Hardly likely in a soho/domestic situation > >> and that you can reduce that probability > > which is already infinitesimal > >> by choosing small pieces and neither the obvious ones nor the ones >> you know that everyone else uses. >> > Since its a private network there is no everyone else > >> Greetings Marc > Conceivable, it is possible that at some point in time I might need to connect to an VPN. I'll cross that bridge when/if needed. As it is, I don't see what I can do considering that I absolutely must keep the 192.168.1.* range almost intact. I might use a smaller NET, like a /18 prefix instead of a /16 -- Cheers, Carlos E.R. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;