Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #89224 > unrolled thread

Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-29 23:23 -0400
    Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-30 04:14 +0000
      Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-30 23:38 -0400
        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-31 05:31 +0000
        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-31 09:44 +0100
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-31 12:19 +0100
    Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-30 12:37 +0200
      Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-30 13:42 +0200
        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-30 13:58 +0200
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2026-07-30 12:14 +0000
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 13:36 +0200
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-30 13:25 +0100
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 13:37 +0200
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-30 18:43 +0200
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-30 19:22 +0000
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-30 21:53 +0200
                Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-31 05:08 +0000
                  Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-31 01:16 -0400
                    Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-31 08:00 +0000
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2026-07-30 20:07 +0000
                Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-31 05:14 +0000
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 13:38 +0200
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-31 12:46 +0100
                Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 13:57 +0200
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets - Movistar "docs" "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 14:25 +0200
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-30 21:18 +0000
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-30 23:50 -0400
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-07-31 04:06 +0000
                Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-31 00:34 -0400
                  Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 13:50 +0200
                    Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-31 14:51 +0200
                      Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-31 14:37 +0100
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 13:43 +0200
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-31 12:50 +0100
                Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 14:00 +0200
        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2026-07-30 11:59 +0000
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-30 13:32 +0100
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-30 18:44 +0200
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-30 18:06 +0100
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-30 21:54 +0200
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-30 23:48 -0400
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-31 08:15 +0200
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-31 06:53 +0000
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-31 14:52 +0200
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-31 12:10 +0100
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-31 15:04 +0200
                Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-31 14:42 +0100
                  Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-31 16:24 +0200
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 14:04 +0200
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-31 15:06 +0200
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-31 14:42 +0100
                Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-31 16:25 +0200
                  Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-31 15:34 +0100
        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-30 13:24 +0100
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-31 08:16 +0200
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-31 12:15 +0100
        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-30 14:53 +0100
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-30 14:59 +0100
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-30 15:06 +0100
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-07-30 14:35 +0000
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-30 18:46 +0200
        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-30 23:45 -0400
        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 13:51 +0200
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Stanislav N. aka pztrn" <no@email.please> - 2026-07-31 17:28 +0500
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-31 15:07 +0200
      Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-30 23:43 -0400
        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 14:28 +0200
    Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-30 13:48 +0200

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#89224 — Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets

Normal - you connect yer box to "THE Network",
some dot address.

But what if you want it to see MULTIPLE subnets ...
192.168.0.x and 192.168.1.x or more ???

Some routers, with some work, can do this - but
I've never got it to work cleanly. Didn't need
to so I didn't put in a huge amount of time.

What if you DON'T wanna use a router, just want
the other subnets to be "out there" and reachable ?

I've seen some theoretics, but never any
really solid formula. Never tried any.

Has anybody made this work ? The adapter
must not see just ONE subnet, but a LIST
of subnets and translate one to another
seamlessly.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#89229

On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 23:23:07 -0400, c186282 wrote:

> Has anybody made this work ? The adapter must not see just ONE subnet,
> but a LIST of subnets and translate one to another seamlessly.

Many of our sites used dual homed NICs. Typically one NIC would be on the 
LAN, the other would be on the state network. In Windows the route command 
lets you set up a persistent route so that traffic goes through the 
correct gateway.

You can do the same thing to establish a failover with redundant networks. 
I don't know if that is what you're asking.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89281

On 7/30/26 00:14, rbowman wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 23:23:07 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>> Has anybody made this work ? The adapter must not see just ONE subnet,
>> but a LIST of subnets and translate one to another seamlessly.
> 
> Many of our sites used dual homed NICs. Typically one NIC would be on the
> LAN, the other would be on the state network. In Windows the route command
> lets you set up a persistent route so that traffic goes through the
> correct gateway.
> 
> You can do the same thing to establish a failover with redundant networks.
> I don't know if that is what you're asking.

   I don't want "FAIL-over" - I want two or more
   subnets to be "live" ... access machines/devices
   on several subnets just by supplying the correct
   dot address or such.

   Preferably some fix that does NOT require 9999
   line scripts or $500 hardware.

   Not TOO long ago, we'd have asked why anyone
   would need more than 254 IP addresses easily
   in grasp. However that was before MANY boxes,
   MANY servers and finally "IOT".

   I did TRY to do this fix using a software router
   a few years back. Despite promises it didn't
   work right at all.

   Even now retired, my home has a lot of "IOT"
   type devices. It's beginning to get cluttered
   and ugly. I'd rather most of them be on another
   subnet entirely. Medium-sized biz, they're
   gonna be even MORE pressed to fit everything
   into just one subnet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89300

On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 23:38:13 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    Even now retired, my home has a lot of "IOT" type devices. It's
>    beginning to get cluttered and ugly. I'd rather most of them be on
>    another subnet entirely. Medium-sized biz, they're gonna be even MORE
>    pressed to fit everything into just one subnet.

There were several subnets at work but I have no idea how that was 
achieved. Above my pay grade, or I should say not what I was getting paid 
for.

There was an amusing interlude where one of the IT hotshots configured a 
subnet as IPv6. The support people could tell each other secrets all day 
but not break out to the rest of the world.

That was early in the game at the 'OMG! We've given away the last IPv4 
block! The sky is falling!' so he thought he was being proactive. I assume 
15 years later they can be made to play together better.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89310

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
> On 7/30/26 00:14, rbowman wrote:
>> c186282 wrote:
>>> Has anybody made this work ? The adapter must not see just ONE subnet,
>>> but a LIST of subnets and translate one to another seamlessly.
>>
>> Many of our sites used dual homed NICs. Typically one NIC would be on
>> the LAN, the other would be on the state network. In Windows the
>> route command lets you set up a persistent route so that traffic goes
>> through the correct gateway.  You can do the same thing to establish
>> a failover with redundant networks.  I don't know if that is what
>> you're asking.
>
> I don't want "FAIL-over" - I want two or more
> subnets to be "live" ... access machines/devices
> on several subnets just by supplying the correct
> dot address or such.
>
> Preferably some fix that does NOT require 9999
> line scripts or $500 hardware.

If you want multiple IP networks on the same ethernet network, you can
add multiple address/mask pairs to the ethernet interface on each device
that needs to be on both. Just read the docs for whatever system you use
to configure the network.

However you will need some way to make all the other devices pick the
right network to be on. That means either manually configuring them
(which could be impractical many cases) or configuring your DHCP server
to assign addresses appropriately. Really, I don’t think is a great
idea, unless you have very simple requirements it’s more work than it
sounds.

My strategy is a separate VLAN for each device class, with a separate
SSID for each VLAN and with most physical ethernet ports assigned to the
VLAN for the attached device. Devices on different VLANs can only
communicate with each other if the house router permits it.

> Not TOO long ago, we'd have asked why anyone would need more than 254
> IP addresses easily in grasp. However that was before MANY boxes, MANY
> servers and finally "IOT".

If the problem is too many devices, just use a bigger network, there is
no reason you have to limit yourself to a /24.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89314

On 31/07/2026 09:44, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> If the problem is too many devices, just use a bigger network, there is
> no reason you have to limit yourself to a /24.

Well the issue of broadcast traffic rears its ugly head if you have 
10,000 machines on the same subnet and Ethernet.

AND if you use e,g. OSPF and multiple routers, you can build in 
redundancy of routing

Personally I wouldn't want more than about 100 machines on any active 
subnet. Its nice to have sections you can isolate


-- 
"It was a lot more fun being 20 in the 70's that it is being 70 in the 20's"
Joew Walsh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89234

On 2026-07-30 05:23, c186282 wrote:
> Normal - you connect yer box to "THE Network",
> some dot address.
> 
> But what if you want it to see MULTIPLE subnets ...
> 192.168.0.x and 192.168.1.x or more ???

Laicolasse:~ # ifconfig
eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
         inet 192.168.2.9  netmask 255.255.0.0  broadcast 192.168.255.255
         inet6 fe80::f6a8:A:B:C  prefixlen 64  scopeid 0x20<link>
         ether f4:*:*:*:*:01  txqueuelen 1000  (Ethernet)
         RX packets 23204  bytes 20795150 (19.8 MiB)
         RX errors 0  dropped 1  overruns 0  frame 0
         TX packets 11818  bytes 1882795 (1.7 MiB)
         TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0


...

> Has anybody made this work ? The adapter
> must not see just ONE subnet, but a LIST
> of subnets and translate one to another
> seamlessly.

Works for me as above :-)


-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89235

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  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.

>Works for me as above :-)

Until the moment you'd want to connect to another network.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE   |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | 
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89237

On 2026-07-30 13:42, Marc Haber wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  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.

> 
>> Works for me as above :-)
> 
> Until the moment you'd want to connect to another network.
> 
> Greetings
> Marc


-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89239

At Thu, 30 Jul 2026 13:58:28 +0200 "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> 
> On 2026-07-30 13:42, Marc Haber wrote:
> > "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> >> eth0: flagsA63<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  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.

What is the ISP doing with *your* LAN network?  The router should only be 
using *one* LAN IP address (commonly 192.168.0.1 or 192.168.1.1 for typical 
home routers) for the router itself.  The WAN network is something else,

> 
> > 
> >> Works for me as above :-)
> > 
> > Until the moment you'd want to connect to another network.
> > 
> > Greetings
> > Marc
> 
> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- Cell: 413-658-7953 GV: 978-633-5364
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89321

On 2026-07-30 14:14, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Thu, 30 Jul 2026 13:58:28 +0200 "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>
>> On 2026-07-30 13:42, Marc Haber wrote:
>>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> eth0: flagsA63<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  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.
> 
> What is the ISP doing with *your* LAN network?  The router should only be
> using *one* LAN IP address (commonly 192.168.0.1 or 192.168.1.1 for typical
> home routers) for the router itself.  The WAN network is something else,

There is a reservation of IPs for the TV, I think it is. The phone 
service is also on it, on 10.*.*.*

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89241

On 30/07/2026 12:58, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2026-07-30 13:42, Marc Haber wrote:
>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  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.
> 
Well stick a twin ethernet linux box in between as a router.

>>
>>> Works for me as above :-)
>>
>> Until the moment you'd want to connect to another network.
>>
>> Greetings
>> Marc
> 
> 

-- 
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale 
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89322

On 2026-07-30 14:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 30/07/2026 12:58, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2026-07-30 13:42, Marc Haber wrote:
>>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  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.
>>
> Well stick a twin ethernet linux box in between as a router.

An expense and a complication.


-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89251

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>On 2026-07-30 13:42, Marc Haber wrote:
>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  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.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE   |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | 
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89266

On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 18:43:11 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:

> 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.

wlp2s0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
        inet 192.168.1.124  netmask 255.255.255.0  broadcast 192.168.1.255

It's the same on the machine with a wired connection. It's a StarLink 
router so argue with Musk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89268

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 18:43:11 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>wlp2s0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
>        inet 192.168.1.124  netmask 255.255.255.0  broadcast 192.168.1.255
>
>It's the same on the machine with a wired connection.

Please get the basics of IP networking right and take a look at the
netmask.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE   |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | 
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89295

On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 21:53:18 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:

> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 18:43:11 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>wlp2s0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
>>        inet 192.168.1.124  netmask 255.255.255.0  broadcast
>>        192.168.1.255
>>
>>It's the same on the machine with a wired connection.
> 
> Please get the basics of IP networking right and take a look at the
> netmask.
> 
> Greetings Marc

Networking isn't an area where I have any great deal of skills. I plug the 
stuff in and it works. I'm  not going to screw around for the sake of some 
hypothetical purity. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89298

On 7/31/26 01:08, rbowman wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 21:53:18 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> 
>> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 18:43:11 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> wlp2s0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
>>>         inet 192.168.1.124  netmask 255.255.255.0  broadcast
>>>         192.168.1.255
>>>
>>> It's the same on the machine with a wired connection.
>>
>> Please get the basics of IP networking right and take a look at the
>> netmask.
>>
>> Greetings Marc
> 
> Networking isn't an area where I have any great deal of skills. I plug the
> stuff in and it works. I'm  not going to screw around for the sake of some
> hypothetical purity.

   I'm kind of the same way. It's SO complex under
   the hood ... well ... it'd better Just Work.

   I know I'm asking for something a bit out of the
   ordinary. There have been a few proposed options
   I'm gonna look into. However I'm not gonna
   massively edit huge scripts or config files,
   requiring arcane knowledge. The more "standard"
   the better.

   The modern environment CAN use up more than 254
   addresses - or at least CROWD the 254 so badly
   that it's hard to organize. With "IOT" stuff
   this will just get WORSE.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89308

On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 01:16:13 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    The modern environment CAN use up more than 254 addresses - or at
>    least CROWD the 254 so badly that it's hard to organize. With "IOT"
>    stuff this will just get WORSE.

I don't have any IOT stuff. All systems are as dumb as a box of rocks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89270

At 30 Jul 2026 19:22:22 GMT rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 18:43:11 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> wlp2s0: flagsA63<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
>         inet 192.168.1.124  netmask 255.255.255.0  broadcast 192.168.1.255
> 

This is a perfectly normal/typical router set up.  It is using the LAN address 
range of 192.168.1.0/24 -- 254 host IP addresses from 192.168.1.1 through 
192.168.1.254.  (Addresses 192.168.1.0 and 192.168.1.255 are reserved for 
special purposes.)

> It's the same on the machine with a wired connection. It's a StarLink 
> router so argue with Musk.

Musk & crew are not doing anything strange.

>                                                                                          
> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- Cell: 413-658-7953 GV: 978-633-5364
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web