Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #89224 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-07-29 23:23 -0400 |
| Last post | 2026-07-30 13:48 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 84 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
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> - 2026-08-01 14:11 +0200
Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-01 16:49 +0200
Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-01 16:49 +0100
Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-01 19:14 +0000
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 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-31 22:52 +0000
Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-31 23:45 -0400
Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-01 12:22 +0100
Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-01 14:15 +0200
Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-01 14:09 +0100
Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-01 14:08 +0100
Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-01 19:11 +0000
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 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-31 22:55 +0000
Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2026-08-01 15:49 +0300
Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-01 15:16 +0200
Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-01 16:52 +0200
Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-01 16:52 +0100
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 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 05:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd2p96F9i60U12@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89270 |
On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 20:07:23 -0000 (UTC), Robert Heller wrote: > 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. I am aware. The Verison MiFi had a similar setup. As in my last reply to Marc I'm not going to mess with it to make it as he thinks it should be. I don't have enough devices that I plan to 'run out' of IPv4 addresses on my private LAN.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 13:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nd3fptFi6v5U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89251 |
On 2026-07-30 18:43, Marc Haber wrote:
> "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.
There is no documentation. They keep it secret. What is known is by
reverse engineering.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 12:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <114i1tt$2ktba$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89324 |
On 31/07/2026 12:38, Carlos E. R. wrote: > On 2026-07-30 18:43, Marc Haber wrote: >> "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. > > There is no documentation. They keep it secret. What is known is by > reverse engineering. > Indeed. One of the reasons I hate using mobile phones as routers. Arbitrary and strange IP addresses behind massive firewalls I don't control... -- Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is that they are dead. Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 13:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nd3gtfFi6v2U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89327 |
On 2026-07-31 13:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 31/07/2026 12:38, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2026-07-30 18:43, Marc Haber wrote:
>>> "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.
>>
>> There is no documentation. They keep it secret. What is known is by
>> reverse engineering.
>>
> Indeed. One of the reasons I hate using mobile phones as routers.
> Arbitrary and strange IP addresses behind massive firewalls I don't
> control...
>
Well, this on is fibre. It is Movistar in Spain. And they are starting
to "fine" people that use their own optical router. The EU can be
fucked. Not fine, they simply cancel service.
Source:
<https://bandaancha.eu/articulos/aviso-excepcional-telefonica-conectan-11821>
*Telefónica has issued an ultimatum to those connecting
non-official equipment to its fibre network. They must either return
their router or risk losing their service.*
The freedom to connect one’s own equipment directly to Movistar’s
fibre network is coming to an end. Movistar is sending a warning to
users who do not use its official equipment, notifying them of a drastic
measure: they will lose their connection if they do not return the
original equipment.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 14:25 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets - Movistar "docs" |
| Message-ID | <nd3ihnFi6v5U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89324 |
On 2026-07-31 13:38, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2026-07-30 18:43, Marc Haber wrote:
>> "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:
>> 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.
I can, however, ask ChatGPT to explain the configuration of the Telefónica fibre router. I once did.
Ah, yes—that's a much more interesting question. You're asking about **Movistar's actual network architecture as delivered to the customer**, not the router UI. Fortunately, this is reasonably well understood because many people have reverse-engineered it.
The fibre entering your house is not just "Internet." It's an Ethernet trunk carrying several services over IEEE 802.1Q VLANs.
A typical FTTH connection looks conceptually like this:
```
Fibre (GPON/XGS-PON)
OLT
│
─────────────────
│
Optical fibre
│
HGU / ONT
│
┌────────────┼────────────┐
│ │ │
Internet IPTV VoIP
```
The ONT converts GPON into Ethernet frames while preserving VLAN tags.
## VLAN layout
Historically (and still on many installations) Movistar uses:
| VLAN | Service |
| ---: | --------------------- |
| 6 | Internet |
| 2 | IPTV (Movistar Plus+) |
| 3 | VoIP |
These numbers have been remarkably stable for years.
The HGU internally creates three virtual interfaces:
```
eth0.2
eth0.3
eth0.6
```
where:
* `.2` is TV
* `.3` is telephone
* `.6` is Internet
The customer never sees these because they're terminated inside the router.
---
## Internet (VLAN 6)
This is the normal routed connection.
Historically it used PPPoE.
Nowadays most residential connections use **IPoE (DHCP)**.
The router obtains:
* one public IPv4 address
* gateway
* DNS
Then NAT is performed towards:
```
192.168.1.0/24
```
---
## IPTV (VLAN 2)
This is completely separate from Internet.
The TV decoder doesn't simply stream Netflix-like traffic over the Internet.
Instead it joins multicast groups using:
* IGMP
* IGMP Proxy
* IGMP Snooping
The flow is roughly:
```
TV Decoder
↓
IGMP Join
↓
Router
↓
VLAN 2
↓
Movistar TV network
```
Once subscribed, multicast packets are forwarded only to ports that requested them.
That's why the router has several hidden multicast-related options.
This separation also allows TV traffic to receive different QoS treatment from Internet traffic.
---
## Voice (VLAN 3)
The analogue phone ports on the HGU are actually connected to a SIP client running inside the router.
Internally:
```
Phone
↓
ATA
↓
SIP
↓
VLAN 3
↓
Movistar VoIP servers
```
The customer normally never sees:
* SIP username
* SIP password
* registrar
* codecs
These are provisioned automatically through Movistar's management system.
---
## Management
There is effectively another "service" that's not customer-facing.
The router maintains a management connection using protocols such as:
* TR-069 (CWMP)
* ACS (Auto Configuration Server)
This allows Movistar to:
* change Wi-Fi settings remotely (through the Smart WiFi app)
* update firmware
* reset configuration
* collect diagnostics
* reprovision services
So even if you never touch the router, it is periodically contacting Movistar's management servers.
---
## QoS
Because Internet, TV, and VoIP are already separated at Layer 2 using VLANs, the router can prioritize traffic approximately like this:
```
Highest priority
Voice
Medium
IPTV
Lower
Internet
```
This ensures that a large download doesn't interfere with phone calls or TV.
---
## If you replace the router
This is where things become interesting.
If you connect your own router directly to the ONT (or use an SFP GPON/XGS-PON module), you need to recreate those VLAN interfaces yourself:
```
WAN
├── VLAN 6 → Internet
├── VLAN 2 → IPTV
└── VLAN 3 → VoIP
```
Many users only configure VLAN 6 because they don't use the landline or Movistar TV. In that case, everything works except those services.
If you want the TV decoder to function correctly, you also need IGMP proxying and multicast support on VLAN 2. If you want the telephone service, you either need the SIP credentials (which Movistar does not normally provide) or you keep the HGU solely for VoIP.
---
So the "result" of Movistar's setup is essentially that your fibre presents **three logically independent Ethernet networks** over a single optical connection. The HGU acts as a demultiplexer:
* **VLAN 6 → Routed Internet (NAT to 192.168.1.0/24)**
* **VLAN 2 → Multicast IPTV network**
* **VLAN 3 → SIP/VoIP network**
From the customer's perspective it looks like one broadband connection, but at the Ethernet level it's really three distinct services sharing the same fibre. This architecture is one of the reasons Movistar TV and phone continue working independently of your Internet traffic.
Q: of the 255 adresses of that router, some are reserved. There is the DHCP range, but I think there is another reserved for TV or something
Yes, there is. The HGU uses parts of the `192.168.1.0/24` subnet internally, although the exact assignments vary slightly by firmware and model.
A typical Movistar HGU ends up looking something like this:
| Address/range | Purpose |
| ------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------- |
| `192.168.1.1` | Router LAN interface (default gateway) |
| `192.168.1.2`–`192.168.1.31` | Reserved for static devices and internal services |
| `192.168.1.33`–`192.168.1.254` | DHCP pool (default) |
The interesting part is what happens with the addresses below `.32`.
### IPTV decoder
The TV decoder normally receives an address **outside the normal DHCP pool**. Depending on the firmware, you'll often see it around:
* `192.168.1.200+`, or
* a reserved low address such as `.3`, `.4`, etc.
The router recognizes the decoder (by MAC address and DHCP options) and gives it a specific lease rather than treating it like an ordinary client.
### Internal interfaces
The HGU also creates several virtual interfaces that don't correspond to physical LAN ports. Some firmwares assign them addresses on the LAN subnet for:
* IPTV control
* IGMP proxy
* multicast relay
* management
These addresses are usually hidden from the web interface.
### Hidden DHCP reservations
The DHCP server is not simply "free addresses from .33 onward". It also has a table of **reserved MAC addresses** for Movistar equipment:
* TV decoder(s)
* Wi-Fi extenders (Movistar Amplificador/Smart WiFi)
* sometimes internal management devices
These reservations are invisible in the normal configuration pages.
### Why start at `.33`?
Movistar deliberately leaves the first 32 addresses available because network administrators often want to assign static IPs manually:
```
192.168.1.1 Router
192.168.1.2 NAS
192.168.1.3 Printer
192.168.1.4 Home Assistant
...
192.168.1.32 Reserved
192.168.1.33+ DHCP
```
So although the router itself isn't using all of `.2`–`.32`, it avoids allocating them dynamically.
---
One subtle point is that **the TV traffic itself is not carried over a separate IP subnet**. People sometimes assume there's a hidden `192.168.x.x` network for IPTV, but there isn't. The isolation happens at **Layer 2** (VLAN 2), and once the packets reach your LAN they're multicast IP packets on the same Ethernet segment. The decoder simply gets a normal IPv4 address on your LAN, then joins multicast groups via IGMP.
If you're asking because you've seen references to "reserved addresses for TV", I suspect you're remembering older Imagenio documentation. Early Movistar routers did indeed reserve specific LAN addresses for the set-top box, but modern HGUs rely much more on **MAC-based DHCP reservations** than on fixed IP numbers.
------------
DHCP config in my router was from 33 to 200. So I moved it to 192.168.2.* to have more.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-30 21:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <114gf3s$24ndu$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89237 |
On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 13:58:28 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote: > 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 remember seeing one setup -- I think in the house of a friend of a friend -- where there, not one, but *two* routers between the house LAN and the Internet. The outer one specified one private LAN, while the inner one put the house machines on an entirely different one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-30 23:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kfOdnWMfnYYfhvH3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #89276 |
On 7/30/26 17:18, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 13:58:28 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote: > >> 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 remember seeing one setup -- I think in the house of a friend of a > friend -- where there, not one, but *two* routers between the house > LAN and the Internet. The outer one specified one private LAN, while > the inner one put the house machines on an entirely different one. TWO routers ? UUUGGGH !!! Sounds like a world of trouble !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 04:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn116o7qj.448.spamtrap42@one.localnet> |
| In reply to | #89285 |
On 2026-07-31, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 7/30/26 17:18, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 13:58:28 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote: >> >>> 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 remember seeing one setup -- I think in the house of a friend of a >> friend -- where there, not one, but *two* routers between the house >> LAN and the Internet. The outer one specified one private LAN, while >> the inner one put the house machines on an entirely different one. > > TWO routers ? UUUGGGH !!! Sounds like > a world of trouble ! Sounds can be deceiving. If the routers are arranged in series, you get what is sometimes referred to as double-NAT. You end up with three levels of network: - outer WAN with IP address provided by the ISP - middle ground, LAN to the outer router and WAN to the inner router - inner LAN A host in the middle ground can access the rest of the middle ground and the outer Internet. The middle ground can be used for less-trustworthy machines, like an employer's laptop or other Windows machines. It's somewhat like a DMZ. If printers must be accessed by the employer's laptop or other Windows machines, the printer can go in the middle ground. A host on the inner LAN can access the rest of the inner LAN, the middle ground, and the outer Internet. For an intruder to attack a host on the inner LAN, the intruder needs to break through both routers. Zoom and a few other services don't play well with double NAT, so Zoom and the like bad-mouth double NAT. If I ever really need to use Zoom, I'll use it from a Raspberry Pi in the middle ground. -- Robert Riches spamtrap42@jacob21819.net (Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 00:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tbicncdMNbd_uPH3nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #89286 |
On 7/31/26 00:06, Robert Riches wrote: > On 2026-07-31, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> On 7/30/26 17:18, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 13:58:28 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote: >>> >>>> 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 remember seeing one setup -- I think in the house of a friend of a >>> friend -- where there, not one, but *two* routers between the house >>> LAN and the Internet. The outer one specified one private LAN, while >>> the inner one put the house machines on an entirely different one. >> >> TWO routers ? UUUGGGH !!! Sounds like >> a world of trouble ! > > Sounds can be deceiving. If the routers are arranged in series, > you get what is sometimes referred to as double-NAT. You end up > with three levels of network: > > - outer WAN with IP address provided by the ISP > > - middle ground, LAN to the outer router and WAN to the inner > router > > - inner LAN > > A host in the middle ground can access the rest of the middle > ground and the outer Internet. The middle ground can be used for > less-trustworthy machines, like an employer's laptop or other > Windows machines. It's somewhat like a DMZ. If printers must be > accessed by the employer's laptop or other Windows machines, the > printer can go in the middle ground. > > A host on the inner LAN can access the rest of the inner LAN, the > middle ground, and the outer Internet. For an intruder to attack > a host on the inner LAN, the intruder needs to break through both > routers. > > Zoom and a few other services don't play well with double NAT, so > Zoom and the like bad-mouth double NAT. If I ever really need to > use Zoom, I'll use it from a Raspberry Pi in the middle ground. Well, I'm not corporate-funded anymore and there's no clear approach to multiple routers on my home 5G connection. Likely what you say CAN be done ... but ..... So, I'm looking for a "good cheat". Someone suggested altering the netmask in the device def ... make it 'broader'. MAY be that might do something. Or maybe create a gigantic clusterfuck. In any case, the "IOT" world is sucking up lots and lots of addresses. Depending, 254 may NOT be enough, or at least be enough to create a horrible clutter you can't manage or organize. I'd LIKE to push all my "IOT"-type devices off into a different subnet YET be able to GET at them easily.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 13:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nd3ggiFi6v2U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89288 |
On 2026-07-31 06:34, c186282 wrote:
>
> In any case, the "IOT" world is sucking
> up lots and lots of addresses. Depending,
> 254 may NOT be enough, or at least be
> enough to create a horrible clutter you
> can't manage or organize. I'd LIKE to push
> all my "IOT"-type devices off into a different
> subnet YET be able to GET at them easily.
That's an easier possibility. Use a second router with WiFi just for the
IoT part, and put it on 172.16.0.0/12.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 14:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <114i5nq$23pqk$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #89329 |
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >172.16.0.0/12. Do not use that network with this prefix length in production anywhere. Not even to trigger me. It's plain stupid. 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]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 14:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <114i8fk$2ols3$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89342 |
On 31/07/2026 13:51, Marc Haber wrote: > "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> 172.16.0.0/12. > > Do not use that network with this prefix length in production > anywhere. > > Not even to trigger me. > > It's plain stupid. > > Greetings > Marc > Ah. The Teutonic One True Stick -- 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]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-01 14:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nd6636F4quU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89342 |
On 2026-07-31 14:51, Marc Haber wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> 172.16.0.0/12.
>
> Do not use that network with this prefix length in production
> anywhere.
>
> Not even to trigger me.
>
> It's plain stupid.
I got it from an internet search:
The most commonly used private IPv4 address ranges are defined by Internet Engineering Task Force in RFC 1918:
| CIDR | Address Range | Number of Addresses |
| ---------------- | --------------------------------- | ------------------- |
| `10.0.0.0/8` | `10.0.0.0` – `10.255.255.255` | 16,777,216 |
| `172.16.0.0/12` | `172.16.0.0` – `172.31.255.255` | 1,048,576 |
| `192.168.0.0/16` | `192.168.0.0` – `192.168.255.255` | 65,536 |
If it is wrong, you will have to explain.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-01 16:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <114l12h$2aber$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #89381 |
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >If it is wrong, you will have to explain. I did. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-01 16:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <114l4ic$3nej4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89393 |
On 01/08/2026 15:49, Marc Haber wrote: > "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> If it is wrong, you will have to explain. > > I did. > Not in any comprehensible form. I still dont have any real idea what you are saying. At various times you have said networking is classless class Cs don't exist any more RFC1918, which specifies classs Cs, is completely valid. Honestly I haven't a clue what your point is and I am losing the will to live - -- Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-01 19:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd6ushF4198U8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89395 |
On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 16:49:32 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Honestly I haven't a clue what your point is and I am losing the will to > live I freely admit I don't know enough about network configuration to separate the fly shit from the pepper but I have the feeling that needs done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 13:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nd3g32Fi6v2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89276 |
On 2026-07-30 23:18, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 13:58:28 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
>> 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 remember seeing one setup -- I think in the house of a friend of a
> friend -- where there, not one, but *two* routers between the house
> LAN and the Internet. The outer one specified one private LAN, while
> the inner one put the house machines on an entirely different one.
Problem for me, is that the TV set expects the router to be on
192.168.1.*. I would have to connect any TV on the house to the first
router, and have two wires.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 12:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <114i264$2ktba$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89326 |
On 31/07/2026 12:43, Carlos E. R. wrote: > On 2026-07-30 23:18, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 13:58:28 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote: >> >>> 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 remember seeing one setup -- I think in the house of a friend of a >> friend -- where there, not one, but *two* routers between the house >> LAN and the Internet. The outer one specified one private LAN, while >> the inner one put the house machines on an entirely different one. > > Problem for me, is that the TV set expects the router to be on > 192.168.1.*. I would have to connect any TV on the house to the first > router, and have two wires. > You use a second dhcp server on the second router ] -- "An intellectual is a person knowledgeable in one field who speaks out only in others...” Tom Wolfe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 14:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nd3h2rFi6v2U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89328 |
On 2026-07-31 13:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 31/07/2026 12:43, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2026-07-30 23:18, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 13:58:28 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 remember seeing one setup -- I think in the house of a friend of a
>>> friend -- where there, not one, but *two* routers between the house
>>> LAN and the Internet. The outer one specified one private LAN, while
>>> the inner one put the house machines on an entirely different one.
>>
>> Problem for me, is that the TV set expects the router to be on
>> 192.168.1.*. I would have to connect any TV on the house to the first
>> router, and have two wires.
>>
> You use a second dhcp server on the second router
> ]
>
Sure, the goal being having 255*255 addresses, it can not be the
192.168.1.* range. So I have to connect all TV sets to the first router,
it is special. And then I need two cables.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 22:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <114j8uq$34k3s$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89326 |
On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 13:43:30 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote: > Problem for me, is that the TV set expects the router to be on > 192.168.1.*. I’m sure that’s settable, buried in a settings menu somewhere. Or alternatively, just leave the “smart TV” functionality disabled altogether.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web