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 86 — 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> - 2026-08-01 22:57 +0200
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 "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-01 23:04 +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 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 14:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nd3halFi6v5U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89238 |
On 2026-07-30 13:59, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Thu, 30 Jul 2026 13:42:04 +0200 Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> 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.
>
> Indeed. If one really needs a class B sub-net for one's home netwoek (64K
> nodes?) I believe there are class B sub-nets under 172.16.0.0 to
> 172.31.255.255.
Which I can not use. That modification to the ISP router will render it not working.
> The 192.168.*.0 sub-nets are for class Class C Private
> sub-nets.
LOL. ChatGPT just said to me:
The IPv4 address ranges reserved for private local networks (defined in RFC 1918) are:
| Private range | CIDR notation | Number of addresses | Common use |
| --------------------------------- | ---------------- | ------------------: | ----------------------------------------------- |
| **10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255** | `10.0.0.0/8` | 16,777,216 | Large enterprise networks, cloud infrastructure |
| **172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255** | `172.16.0.0/12` | 1,048,576 | Medium to large private networks |
| **192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255** | `192.168.0.0/16` | 65,536 | Home routers and small office networks |
It gives no link for this information, except citing RFC 1918
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 15:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <114i6ko$23rqe$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #89334 |
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >On 2026-07-30 13:59, Robert Heller wrote: >> The 192.168.*.0 sub-nets are for class Class C Private >> sub-nets. > >LOL. ChatGPT just said to me: > >The IPv4 address ranges reserved for private local networks (defined in RFC 1918) are: > >| Private range | CIDR notation | Number of addresses | Common use | >| --------------------------------- | ---------------- | ------------------: | ----------------------------------------------- | >| **10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255** | `10.0.0.0/8` | 16,777,216 | Large enterprise networks, cloud infrastructure | >| **172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255** | `172.16.0.0/12` | 1,048,576 | Medium to large private networks | >| **192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255** | `192.168.0.0/16` | 65,536 | Home routers and small office networks | > >It gives no link for this information, except citing RFC 1918 That is not a contradiction. There is no obligation to waste IP addresses, you can always choose a longer prefix. And it is actually a smart idea to do so. The fact that the net is full of incorrect, obsolete, and misleading terminology is a reason for "AI" to ingest that and of course to regurgitate it. 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 14:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <114i8or$2ols3$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89345 |
On 31/07/2026 14:06, Marc Haber wrote: > "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> On 2026-07-30 13:59, Robert Heller wrote: >>> The 192.168.*.0 sub-nets are for class Class C Private >>> sub-nets. >> >> LOL. ChatGPT just said to me: >> >> The IPv4 address ranges reserved for private local networks (defined in RFC 1918) are: >> >> | Private range | CIDR notation | Number of addresses | Common use | >> | --------------------------------- | ---------------- | ------------------: | ----------------------------------------------- | >> | **10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255** | `10.0.0.0/8` | 16,777,216 | Large enterprise networks, cloud infrastructure | >> | **172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255** | `172.16.0.0/12` | 1,048,576 | Medium to large private networks | >> | **192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255** | `192.168.0.0/16` | 65,536 | Home routers and small office networks | >> >> It gives no link for this information, except citing RFC 1918 > > That is not a contradiction. There is no obligation to waste IP > addresses, you can always choose a longer prefix. And it is actually a > smart idea to do so. > > The fact that the net is full of incorrect, obsolete, and misleading > terminology is a reason for "AI" to ingest that and of course to > regurgitate it. > That is simply RFC1918. Make up your mind > Greetings > Marc -- "And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch". Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 16:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <114ib89$244va$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #89352 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >That is simply RFC1918. > >Make up your mind Never argue with idiots. Dance a bit for me please. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 15:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <114ibq0$2q6o1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89355 |
On 31/07/2026 15:25, Marc Haber wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> That is simply RFC1918. >> >> Make up your mind > > Never argue with idiots. I just gave up Dance a bit for me please. There. Happy now? > -- Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not. Ayn Rand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-30 13:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <114ffpq$1orc7$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89235 |
On 30/07/2026 12:42, 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. > +1 >> Works for me as above :-) > > Until the moment you'd want to connect to another network. > Inter subnet routing is supported by linux and many routers > 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]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 08:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <114hej6$22b5l$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #89240 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >On 30/07/2026 12:42, Marc Haber wrote: >> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>> Works for me as above :-) >> >> Until the moment you'd want to connect to another network. >> >Inter subnet routing is supported by linux and many routers It is still a very bad idea. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 12:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <114i044$2ktba$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89304 |
On 31/07/2026 07:16, Marc Haber wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 30/07/2026 12:42, Marc Haber wrote: >>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>> Works for me as above :-) >>> >>> Until the moment you'd want to connect to another network. >>> >> Inter subnet routing is supported by linux and many routers > > It is still a very bad idea. > Dont be silly. What else is a router for? - a real one, not these consumer things. Routing between subnets using some kind of routing protocol. In the case of local stuff, static routers, For large organisations probably OSPF. In the big wide world Where There Be Tygers, BGP. For end user speeds a Linux box with two nics (or only one) is a perfectly adequate router. -- "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]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-30 14:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nd13akF74rsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89235 |
Marc Haber wrote: > Carlos E. R. 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. If you want multiple IP subnets on a single ethernet network, you'd be better off using VLANs, even cheapo switches can handle that, then your linux box with a single NIC can have VLAN sub-interfaces e.g. eth1.1 on 192.168.0.1/24 and eth1.10 on 192.168.1.0/24 If you don't want VLANs you *could* use a NIC alias so that e.g. eth1 is on 192.168.0.1/24 and the alias eth1:2 is on 192.168.1.1/24 ... but why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-30 14:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <114flbe$1qul5$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89243 |
On 30/07/2026 14:53, Andy Burns wrote: > Marc Haber wrote: > >> Carlos E. R. 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. > If you want multiple IP subnets on a single ethernet network, you'd be > better off using VLANs, even cheapo switches can handle that, then your > linux box with a single NIC can have VLAN sub-interfaces e.g. eth1.1 on > 192.168.0.1/24 and eth1.10 on 192.168.1.0/24 > > If you don't want VLANs you *could* use a NIC alias so that e.g. eth1 is > on 192.168.0.1/24 and the alias eth1:2 is on 192.168.1.1/24 ... but why? > > They look the same to me. -- The difference bweteen a psychopath and a saint is that the psychpoath takes what he can and gives only what he must, but the saint gives everything he can and takes only what he needs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-30 15:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nd141oF784qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89244 |
The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Andy Burns wrote: > >> If you want multiple IP subnets on a single ethernet network, you'd be >> better off using VLANs, even cheapo switches can handle that, then >> your linux box with a single NIC can have VLAN sub-interfaces e.g. >> eth1.1 on 192.168.0.1/24 and eth1.10 on 192.168.1.0/24 >> >> If you don't want VLANs you *could* use a NIC alias so that e.g. eth1 >> is on 192.168.0.1/24 and the alias eth1:2 is on 192.168.1.1/24 ... but >> why? > > They look the same to me. Sure the names of the interfaces are just one character different (a colon vs a fullstop) but with VLANs, each sub-interface will keep its traffic isolated, won't see broadcast/multicast traffic from the other one ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-30 14:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <114fnf6$1rmhf$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89245 |
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: > The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> Andy Burns wrote: >> >>> If you want multiple IP subnets on a single ethernet network, you'd be >>> better off using VLANs, even cheapo switches can handle that, then >>> your linux box with a single NIC can have VLAN sub-interfaces e.g. >>> eth1.1 on 192.168.0.1/24 and eth1.10 on 192.168.1.0/24 >>> >>> If you don't want VLANs you *could* use a NIC alias so that e.g. eth1 >>> is on 192.168.0.1/24 and the alias eth1:2 is on 192.168.1.1/24 ... but >>> why? >> >> They look the same to me. > Sure the names of the interfaces are just one character different (a > colon vs a fullstop) but with VLANs, each sub-interface will keep its > traffic isolated, won't see broadcast/multicast traffic from the other > one ... True, but keep in mind that each physical interface still sees every packet that flows over the wire. If any one of them are flipped to promiscious mode, that physical interface can capture everything, whether there are vlan's or not at the logical level. So don't rely on VLAN's in an environment where you don't know/have control over all the connected endpoints.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-30 18:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <114fv5b$1v1v5$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #89243 |
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: >If you want multiple IP subnets on a single ethernet network, you'd be >better off using VLANs, even cheapo switches can handle that, then your >linux box with a single NIC can have VLAN sub-interfaces e.g. eth1.1 on >192.168.0.1/24 and eth1.10 on 192.168.1.0/24 Please don't introduce VLANs unless you have fully understood how IP routing works. >If you don't want VLANs you *could* use a NIC alias so that e.g. eth1 is >on 192.168.0.1/24 and the alias eth1:2 is on 192.168.1.1/24 ... but why? NIC aliases have been obsolete in Linux for 20 years. Since then, you just configure a second address on the Interface. 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 | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-30 23:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tbicncVMNbf7h_H3nZ2dnZfqnPgAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #89235 |
On 7/30/26 07:42, 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. > >> Works for me as above :-) > > Until the moment you'd want to connect to another network. Now you have me worried :-) I know that In Theory what I want can be done. My main goal is to move all my "IOT" type devices to a completely different subnet yet be able to get AT them as seamlessly as anything on the primary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 13:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nd3gikFi6v2U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89235 |
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.
>
>> Works for me as above :-)
>
> Until the moment you'd want to connect to another network.
LOL. I asked just now ChatGPT for the ranges, and it said:
| Private range | CIDR notation | Number of addresses | Common use |
| --------------------------------- | ---------------- | ------------------: | ----------------------------------------------- |
| **10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255** | `10.0.0.0/8` | 16,777,216 | Large enterprise networks, cloud infrastructure |
| **172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255** | `172.16.0.0/12` | 1,048,576 | Medium to large private networks |
| **192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255** | `192.168.0.0/16` | 65,536 | Home routers and small office networks |
Notice the last line... :-D
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Stanislav N. aka pztrn" <no@email.please> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 17:28 +0500 |
| Message-ID | <114i4dv$2n8go$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89330 |
31.07.2026 16:51, 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. >> >>> Works for me as above :-) >> >> Until the moment you'd want to connect to another network. > > > > LOL. I asked just now ChatGPT for the ranges, and it said: > > | Private range | CIDR notation | Number of > addresses | Common use | > | --------------------------------- | ---------------- | > ------------------: | ----------------------------------------------- | > | **10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255** | `10.0.0.0/8` | > 16,777,216 | Large enterprise networks, cloud infrastructure | > | **172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255** | `172.16.0.0/12` | > 1,048,576 | Medium to large private networks | > | **192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255** | `192.168.0.0/16` | > 65,536 | Home routers and small office networks | > > Notice the last line... :-D > That's why everyone should do CLASSLESS routing, not CLASSFUL :) CIDRs are your best friends.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 15:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <114i6ln$23rrc$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #89330 |
"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. >> >>> Works for me as above :-) >> >> Until the moment you'd want to connect to another network. > > > >LOL. I asked just now ChatGPT for the ranges, and it said: > >| Private range | CIDR notation | Number of addresses | Common use | >| --------------------------------- | ---------------- | ------------------: | ----------------------------------------------- | >| **10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255** | `10.0.0.0/8` | 16,777,216 | Large enterprise networks, cloud infrastructure | >| **172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255** | `172.16.0.0/12` | 1,048,576 | Medium to large private networks | >| **192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255** | `192.168.0.0/16` | 65,536 | Home routers and small office networks | > >Notice the last line... :-D Yes, we all know that you didn't understand things yet. 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 | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-31 22:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <114j95c$34k3s$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89330 |
On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 13:51:48 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote: > I asked just now ChatGPT for the ranges, and it said: > > | Private range | CIDR notation | Number of addresses | Common use | > | --------------------------------- | ---------------- | ------------------: | ----------------------------------------------- | > | **10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255** | `10.0.0.0/8` | 16,777,216 | Large enterprise networks, cloud infrastructure | > | **172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255** | `172.16.0.0/12` | 1,048,576 | Medium to large private networks | > | **192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255** | `192.168.0.0/16` | 65,536 | Home routers and small office networks | > > Notice the last line... :-D Did it tell you what happens if you use the wrong one? Like I am using the wrong one; do you think ChatGPT will come for me?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-01 15:49 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <114kq1d$3joo1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89330 |
On 31.7.2026 14.51, 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. >> >>> Works for me as above :-) >> >> Until the moment you'd want to connect to another network. > > > > LOL. I asked just now ChatGPT for the ranges, and it said: > > | Private range | CIDR notation | Number of > addresses | Common use | > | --------------------------------- | ---------------- | > ------------------: | ----------------------------------------------- | > | **10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255** | `10.0.0.0/8` | > 16,777,216 | Large enterprise networks, cloud infrastructure | > | **172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255** | `172.16.0.0/12` | > 1,048,576 | Medium to large private networks | > | **192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255** | `192.168.0.0/16` | > 65,536 | Home routers and small office networks | > > Notice the last line... :-D > Specifications for those address ranges are in RFC1918. -- -TV
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-01 15:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nd69sgF4quU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89386 |
On 2026-08-01 14:49, Tauno Voipio wrote:
> On 31.7.2026 14.51, 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.
>>>
>>>> Works for me as above :-)
>>>
>>> Until the moment you'd want to connect to another network.
>>
>>
>>
>> LOL. I asked just now ChatGPT for the ranges, and it said:
>>
>> | Private range | CIDR notation | Number of
>> addresses | Common use |
>> | --------------------------------- | ---------------- |
>> ------------------: | ----------------------------------------------- |
>> | **10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255** | `10.0.0.0/8` | 16,777,216 |
>> Large enterprise networks, cloud infrastructure |
>> | **172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255** | `172.16.0.0/12` | 1,048,576 |
>> Medium to large private networks |
>> | **192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255** | `192.168.0.0/16` | 65,536 | Home
>> routers and small office networks |
>>
>> Notice the last line... :-D
>>
>
> Specifications for those address ranges are in RFC1918.
Yes, ChatGPT is citing that document.
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 |
>
I looked at the document itself on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1918:
3. Private Address Space
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has reserved the
following three blocks of the IP address space for private internets:
10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 (10/8 prefix)
172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix)
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)
We will refer to the first block as "24-bit block", the second as
"20-bit block", and to the third as "16-bit" block. Note that (in
pre-CIDR notation) the first block is nothing but a single class A
network number, while the second block is a set of 16 contiguous
class B network numbers, and third block is a set of 256 contiguous
class C network numbers.
So, stop saying that `192.168.0.0/16` is wrong, or that 172.16/12 is wrong.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web