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

Started byc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
First post2026-07-29 23:23 -0400
Last post2026-07-30 13:48 +0200
Articles 20 on this page of 100 — 13 participants

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> - 2026-08-01 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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-02 10:52 +0100
                            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 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-01 23:43 +0000
                          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-02 03:48 +0200
                            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-01 23:53 -0400
                              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-02 11:00 +0100
                            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-02 03:56 +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 "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-01 23:04 +0200
                    Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-02 06:00 +0200
                      Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-02 00:14 -0400
                        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-02 08:40 +0200
                          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-02 10:55 +0100
                        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-02 10:54 +0100
                      Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-02 11:33 +0100
                  Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-02 05:59 +0200
                    Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-02 11:02 +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 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#89428

Fromc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date2026-08-01 23:53 -0400
Message-ID<IpKcndt0dNe0IvP3nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#89424
On 8/1/26 21:48, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2026-08-02 01:43, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 14:11:18 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>>> I got it from an internet search:
>>
>> Do “internet searches” not turn up Wikipedia any more?
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reserved_IP_addresses>
> 
> I got it from the horse mouth, too:
> 
> 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)

   Ok ... everyone here is arguing TECHNICAL Defs.

   I originally posed a useful QUESTION related to
   what you do if you start to run out of /24
   addresses.

   I don't CARE what the technical defs are ... I was
   looking for a way AROUND them that wasn't TOO damned
   complex or involved hundreds/thousands of dollars
   worth of software/hardware routers with lots of
   very weird tweaks.

   Looking like there's NO SUCH THING as what I was
   asking about. The /24, decided LONG ago, is still
   The Law for the most part.

   Well, for small->medium biz ... lots and lots of
   net-connected boxes/devices/IOT-shit ... /24 may
   NOT be "good enough".

   Even my home system ... "things" are using up rather
   a lot of /24 - it's becoming difficult to organize.
   Functional, yea still, but 'organized' ???

   The ONLY, kinda evil, 'fix' is MULTIPLE ADAPTERS.
   You CAN easily set each to a different subnet and
   then directly access data from each subnet.

   This isn't very good.

   HAVE put more than one wifi dongle on the USB
   bus ... it's too much data, each drags down the
   other. Old desktops, you can buy CARDS ... but
   people don't use "big" boards as much anymore.
   For tablets/phones and most laps you're NOT gonna
   have multiple adapters.

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

#89454

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-08-02 11:00 +0100
Message-ID<114n4f1$ccdc$6@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89428
On 02/08/2026 04:53, c186282 wrote:
> Even my home system ... "things" are using up rather
>    a lot of /24 - it's becoming difficult to organize.
>    Functional, yea still, but 'organized' ???
> 
>    The ONLY, kinda evil, 'fix' is MULTIPLE ADAPTERS.
>    You CAN easily set each to a different subnet and
>    then directly access data from each subnet.
> 
I suggest you look up what the original router did -  and still does.

Multiple interfaces spanning may networks and establishing the necessary 
communication between them,

If more than one router is in play, consider setting up OSPF.


>    This isn't very good.

That why you use routers and separate IP blocks rather than bridges 
(switches) and one big IP address space.

And, typically a local DNS server...

-- 
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social 
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the 
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

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

#89429

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-08-02 03:56 +0000
Message-ID<114mf4o$5rpo$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89424
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 03:48:06 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

> On 2026-08-02 01:43, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 14:11:18 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>>> I got it from an internet search:
>>
>> Do “internet searches” not turn up Wikipedia any more?
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reserved_IP_addresses>
>
> I got it from the horse mouth, too:

Says someone who would rather quote ChatGPT first, then go looking for
an actual reference ...

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

#89326

From"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2026-07-31 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]

#89328

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-07-31 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]

#89333

From"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2026-07-31 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]

#89370

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-07-31 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]

#89375

Fromc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date2026-07-31 23:45 -0400
Message-ID<huydndMVjNJ49vD3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#89370
On 7/31/26 18:52, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> 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.

   I immediately disabled it on mine ... NO SPYING !!!

   Can still "stream" - but thru a Linux-based box
   I can control.

   Thing is, I'm not really into 'streaming' media,
   pref good old channel-surfing capability. Suits
   my brain better.

   As for the "multi-network", ok "sub-network", question,
   I've seen a lot of stuff here - but NO straight-up
   answer to The Question. What DOES happen if yer one
   little subnet gets full or at least too crowded ?
   The IOT stuff - not to mention 'devices' - pushes
   this issue these days. "/24" WAS good enough, but
   maybe NOT so much anymore.

   Ugly fix - buy multiple adapters. Easy enough to set
   the params on each. Yer box can then see EITHER.
   But a pure Linux non-router solution seems to evade.
   If I wanna be able to see and work with ".0.x" AND
   ".1.x" at the same time ...... ? No, NOT gonna set
   up two or more dedicated software-based routers.
   Too expensive and too much fiddly stuff. NEVER got
   it to work well even when I was company funded.

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

#89377

FromRichard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-08-01 12:22 +0100
Message-ID<wwv8q6qt79e.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>
In reply to#89370
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> 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.

TVs default to DHCP like every other consumer device. If Carlos’s has a
static IP configuration then that is because someone has deliberately
changed it.

(Obviously you _could_ make a TV with unchangable IP configuration but
it would be crazy to do so.)

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

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

#89382

From"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2026-08-01 14:15 +0200
Message-ID<nd66b5F4quU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#89377
On 2026-08-01 13:22, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>> 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.
> 
> TVs default to DHCP like every other consumer device. If Carlos’s has a
> static IP configuration then that is because someone has deliberately
> changed it.

I did not.

> 
> (Obviously you _could_ make a TV with unchangable IP configuration but
> it would be crazy to do so.)
> 

I posted what ChatGPT knows of the TV service and the router. It is not 
done as in other countries.

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

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

#89388

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-08-01 14:09 +0100
Message-ID<114kr5q$3jph9$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89382
On 01/08/2026 13:15, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> I posted what ChatGPT knows of the TV service and the router. It is not 
> done as in other countries.

I can definitely believe that.

-- 
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight 
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

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

#89387

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-08-01 14:08 +0100
Message-ID<114kr44$3jph9$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89377
On 01/08/2026 12:22, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>> 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.
> 
> TVs default to DHCP like every other consumer device. If Carlos’s has a
> static IP configuration then that is because someone has deliberately
> changed it.
> 
> (Obviously you _could_ make a TV with unchangable IP configuration but
> it would be crazy to do so.)
> 
I got the impression that the TVS were on a special subnet that allowed 
connection to privileged online services provided by the ISP.

Not hard to bugger with a router to detect 'known' TV MACs and assign 
appropriately.

Or indeed create a default subnet on -say -a different wifi SSID or 
router port.

Having experience the ghastliness of my (German) sisters broadband ISP 
(NO SMTP except to their server, unless you create an exception in the 
router itself) I can believe anything of mots European continental 
providers.
Somehow privatisation and OFCOM has actually worked quite well in Britain


-- 
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act.

- George Orwell

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

#89408

Fromrbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Date2026-08-01 19:11 +0000
Message-ID<nd6un5F4198U7@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#89387
On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 14:08:20 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> I got the impression that the TVS were on a special subnet that allowed
> connection to privileged online services provided by the ISP.

I use a Fire TV dongle. It's just another WiFi device.

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

#89238

FromRobert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com>
Date2026-07-30 11:59 +0000
Message-ID<114feat$1ock7$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89235
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.  The 192.168.*.0 sub-nets are for class Class C Private 
sub-nets.

> 
> >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]

#89242

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-07-30 13:32 +0100
Message-ID<114fg9e$1orc7$6@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89238
On 30/07/2026 12:59, 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.  The 192.168.*.0 sub-nets are for class Class C Private
> sub-nets.
> 
If it's private it doesn't really matter: these networks were defined to 
NOT be on the public internet that's all,

Many routers will allow multiple local networks to be defined and will 
route between them.

If not the simple answer is to insert a linux machine preferably with 
two interfaces, but linux allows two IP addresses to be assigned to a 
single interface


>>
>>> 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]

#89252

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us>
Date2026-07-30 18:44 +0200
Message-ID<114fv25$1v1i6$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#89238
Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> 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.  The 192.168.*.0 sub-nets are for class Class C Private 
>sub-nets.

Classful IP addressing has been irrelevant in practice for over 30
years. Please un-learn that knowledge, especially because you seem to
have it wrong.

192.168.0.0/16 is NOT a class B network and has never been.

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]

#89255

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-07-30 18:06 +0100
Message-ID<114g09o$1vift$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89252
On 30/07/2026 17:44, Marc Haber wrote:

> 
> 192.168.0.0/16 is NOT a class B network and has never been.
> 
technically, it is.

And always has been

Just conventional semantics has it that is a particular range


> Greetings
> Marc

-- 
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a 
kind word alone.

Al Capone

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

#89269

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us>
Date2026-07-30 21:54 +0200
Message-ID<114ga5u$1vq1g$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#89255
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 30/07/2026 17:44, Marc Haber wrote:
>> 
>> 192.168.0.0/16 is NOT a class B network and has never been.
>> 
>technically, it is.
>
>And always has been

I could say okay, but then we'd both be wrong.

If you still regurgitate "knowledge" that became irrelevant three
decades ago, PLEASE regurgitate it correctly and remember that the
network class used to be selected by the first two bits of the IPv4
address.

I'm finished with this part of the discussion.

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]

#89284

Fromc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date2026-07-30 23:48 -0400
Message-ID<kfOdnWAfnYaohvH3nZ2dnZfqnPQAAAAA@giganews.com>
In reply to#89238
On 7/30/26 07:59, 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.  The 192.168.*.0 sub-nets are for class Class C Private
> sub-nets.

   I'm trying to ORGANIZE.

   I'd like to put all my "IOT"-type devices on
   their own subnet, but be able to easily GET
   at them.

   And for medium+ biz these days, 254 addresses
   may NOT be "good enough". Boxes, servers, printers,
   scanners, cams and such ... you CAN use up one
   subnet these days.

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

#89303

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us>
Date2026-07-31 08:15 +0200
Message-ID<114hehj$22b42$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#89238
Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> 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.  The 192.168.*.0 sub-nets are for class Class C Private 
>sub-nets.

That was the case until classful IP addressing was replaced by
classless routing some 30 years ago. Since then people using the
"class X" terminology only divulge their outdated knowledge.

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]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web