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 117 — 15 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 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-04 03:52 +0000
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-04 00:58 -0400
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-04 08:24 +0100
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-04 11:21 +0100
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-11 19:47 +0000
    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 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-02 20:32 +0000
                                  Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-03 12:03 +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> - 2026-08-02 14:13 +0200
                                Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-02 14:55 +0100
                                  Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-02 23:11 -0400
                                    Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-03 16:48 +0000
                                Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-02 23:02 +0000
                                  Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-03 03:05 +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 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 Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2026-08-03 17:15 +0000
                        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 Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-02 14:42 +0100
                          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-02 15:43 +0100
                            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-02 20:27 +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 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

#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]

#89305

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-07-31 06:53 +0000
Message-ID<114hgp6$2etuk$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89303
On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 08:15:15 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:

> 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.

Do we still do “Proxy ARP”?

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

#89343

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us>
Date2026-07-31 14:52 +0200
Message-ID<114i5qv$23q08$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#89305
Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 08:15:15 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Do we still do “Proxy ARP”?

That is one technology that sohuld be avoided, but in some setups
(especially when trying to modernze/fix broken networks that were
installed with way too big networks - exactly what we're talking about
here), it is unavoidable.

I think I can count the situations where I had to use proxy arp with
the fingers of one hand.

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]

#89312

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-07-31 12:10 +0100
Message-ID<114hvs0$2ktba$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89303
On 31/07/2026 07:15, Marc Haber wrote:
> Since then people using the
> "class X" terminology only divulge their outdated knowledge.
> 
> Greetings

And you are merely demonstrating that whilst you know one little 
factoid, you are fucking ignorant about much else.

The  internet at large went classless because the BGP routers could 
handle the table sizes involved.

The class ABC terminology persisted as a neat way to refer to specific 
netmasks

And the private networkls of those sizes were defined to never be on a 
public network or routable by BGP

In the end its the usual mix of pedantry, technical issues and common 
speech.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1918

RFC 1918 may be 30 years old, but it is still in effect. And it refers 
to classful networks


In a private network you can do WTF you like and have network spaces at 
any one bit boundary of a netmask . You can probably create even weirder 
netmasks than 2^n -1 boundaries, though only Farley Flud would try one.

Most people stick to the simple cases. And split into 'class C sized' 
subnets even in larger corporations because it limits the extent of 
broadcast floods. Even though switches already limit traffic between 
nodes to that which is desired only.

Carlos has a point. If Starlink restrict his router to a precise local 
IP and netmask, if he wants more he has no real option than to create 
some routable subnet .


-- 
“Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of 
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

    -  John K Galbraith

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

#89344

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us>
Date2026-07-31 15:04 +0200
Message-ID<114i6h4$23rcu$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#89312
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>The class ABC terminology persisted as a neat way to refer to specific 
>netmasks

Only in Idiots, the rests uses /8, /16 and /24.

>And the private networkls of those sizes were defined to never be on a 
>public network or routable by BGP

But noone with a sane grip on networking ever configures
192.168.0.0/16. You use a /24 network out of that range. And if you're
really smart, you pick a random third octet¹ to avoid conflicts.

>In the end its the usual mix of pedantry, technical issues and common 
>speech.
>
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1918
>
>RFC 1918 may be 30 years old, but it is still in effect. And it refers 
>to classful networks

Of course it does, and it doees so correctly. 10.0.0.0/8 IS a class A
network, 172.16.0.0/12 IS a group of 16 class B network and
192.168.0.0/16 is a group of 256 class C networks. an IP address
belonging to a class is determined by the first bits. IP addresses
starting with binary 00 and 01 belong to Class A networks
(0.0.0.0-127.0.0.0), IP addresses starting with binary 10 belong to
class B networks (128.0.0.0-191.255.0.0), and IP addresses starting
with 110 belong to Class C networks (192.0.0.0-223.255.255.0). There
used to be a class D (beginning with 111), but thankfully noone
remembers that.

172.16.10.0/24 is not a class C network despite having a /24 netmask,
it's a /24 subnet of 172.16.0.0/16 which is a class B network.

|[8/5177]mh@swivel:~ $ ipcalc 172.16.10.0/24
|Address:   172.16.10.0          10101100.00010000.00001010. 00000000
|Netmask:   255.255.255.0 = 24   11111111.11111111.11111111. 00000000
|Wildcard:  0.0.0.255            00000000.00000000.00000000. 11111111
|=>
|Network:   172.16.10.0/24       10101100.00010000.00001010. 00000000
|HostMin:   172.16.10.1          10101100.00010000.00001010. 00000001
|HostMax:   172.16.10.254        10101100.00010000.00001010. 11111110
|Broadcast: 172.16.10.255        10101100.00010000.00001010. 11111111
|Hosts/Net: 254                   Class B, Private Internet
|
|[9/5178]mh@swivel:~ $ ipcalc 172.16.0.0/16
|Address:   172.16.0.0           10101100.00010000. 00000000.00000000
|Netmask:   255.255.0.0 = 16     11111111.11111111. 00000000.00000000
|Wildcard:  0.0.255.255          00000000.00000000. 11111111.11111111
|=>
|Network:   172.16.0.0/16        10101100.00010000. 00000000.00000000
|HostMin:   172.16.0.1           10101100.00010000. 00000000.00000001
|HostMax:   172.16.255.254       10101100.00010000. 11111111.11111110
|Broadcast: 172.16.255.255       10101100.00010000. 11111111.11111111
|Hosts/Net: 65534                 Class B, Private Interne

If you insist on using obsolete terminology, please at least get it
right.

>In a private network you can do WTF you like and have network spaces at 
>any one bit boundary of a netmask . You can probably create even weirder 
>netmasks than 2^n -1 boundaries, though only Farley Flud would try one.

Of course. I have a /23 network for historical reasons. When you
operate with public IPv4 addresses, you'll get quickly acquainted with
/27 through /30 networks.

>Most people stick to the simple cases. And split into 'class C sized' 
>subnets even in larger corporations because it limits the extent of 
>broadcast floods. Even though switches already limit traffic between 
>nodes to that which is desired only.

You even should split smaller. Many companies have been so careless
with the RFC1918 address space that they've run out of those
addresses.

On my network, I have /24 as network size, and I have like 16 of them.
I was too lazy to use /26 or /26 networks which would have been a more
sensible size.

>Carlos has a point. If Starlink restrict his router to a precise local 
>IP and netmask, if he wants more he has no real option than to create 
>some routable subnet .

It is still stupid to use such a HUGE network.

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

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

#89351

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-07-31 14:42 +0100
Message-ID<114i8n8$2ols3$4@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89344
On 31/07/2026 14:04, Marc Haber wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> The class ABC terminology persisted as a neat way to refer to specific
>> netmasks
> 
> Only in Idiots, the rests uses /8, /16 and /24.
> 
>> And the private networkls of those sizes were defined to never be on a
>> public network or routable by BGP
> 
> But noone with a sane grip on networking ever configures
> 192.168.0.0/16. 

Why not. That's 'classless routing' you so endorse.
Or they might do /23 just to be different


You use a /24 network out of that range. And if you're
> really smart, you pick a random third octet¹ to avoid conflicts.
> 
Do I? Ought I? Should I? But classless routing says I do WTF I want.

>> In the end its the usual mix of pedantry, technical issues and common
>> speech.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1918
>>
>> RFC 1918 may be 30 years old, but it is still in effect. And it refers
>> to classful networks
> 
> Of course it does, and it doees so correctly. 10.0.0.0/8 IS a class A
> network, 172.16.0.0/12 IS a group of 16 class B network and
> 192.168.0.0/16 is a group of 256 class C networks. an IP address
> belonging to a class is determined by the first bits. IP addresses
> starting with binary 00 and 01 belong to Class A networks
> (0.0.0.0-127.0.0.0), IP addresses starting with binary 10 belong to
> class B networks (128.0.0.0-191.255.0.0), and IP addresses starting
> with 110 belong to Class C networks (192.0.0.0-223.255.255.0). There
> used to be a class D (beginning with 111), but thankfully noone
> remembers that.
But you said there is no such thing as class A B or C, it's all classless..

Frankly arguing with you is pointless. You contradict yourself at every 
paragraph
>
> 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]

#89354

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us>
Date2026-07-31 16:24 +0200
Message-ID<114ib73$244nv$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#89351
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 31/07/2026 14:04, Marc Haber wrote:
>> really smart, you pick a random third octet¹ to avoid conflicts.
>> 
>Do I? Ought I? Should I? But classless routing says I do WTF I want.

everybody uses 192.168.0.0/24 or 192.168.1.0/24. Deutsche Telekom
Routers use 192.168.2.0/24. Fritzboxes use 192.168.178.0/24. I'd avoid
all of these and maybe the "easy" or "nice" numbers as 100, 200, 254,
250, 128, 192, 64, 42, 23.

You'll be happy about that once you begin building VPNs to your
friends.

But of course you're free to ignore 30 years of IP networking
experience that was sometimes painful to build. I made a couple
mistakes myself.

>> Of course it does, and it doees so correctly. 10.0.0.0/8 IS a class A
>> network, 172.16.0.0/12 IS a group of 16 class B network and
>> 192.168.0.0/16 is a group of 256 class C networks. an IP address
>> belonging to a class is determined by the first bits. IP addresses
>> starting with binary 00 and 01 belong to Class A networks
>> (0.0.0.0-127.0.0.0), IP addresses starting with binary 10 belong to
>> class B networks (128.0.0.0-191.255.0.0), and IP addresses starting
>> with 110 belong to Class C networks (192.0.0.0-223.255.255.0). There
>> used to be a class D (beginning with 111), but thankfully noone
>> remembers that.
>But you said there is no such thing as class A B or C, it's all classless..

It's all classless on today's Internet. I gave you a free history
lesson.

>Frankly arguing with you is pointless. You contradict yourself at every 
>paragraph

and you're wrong.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

#89334

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

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

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

csiph-web