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

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #91412 > unrolled thread

Routers and Subnets

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

Contents

  Routers and Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-14 01:45 -0400
    Re: Routers and Subnets Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-14 07:30 +0100
    Re: Routers and Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-14 09:40 +0200
    Re: Routers and Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-14 11:12 +0100
    Re: Routers and Subnets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-09-14 17:12 +0000
      Re: Routers and Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-14 20:32 -0400
        Re: Routers and Subnets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-09-15 01:47 +0000
          Re: Routers and Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-15 02:13 -0400
            Re: Routers and Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-15 07:59 +0100
          Re: Routers and Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-15 03:36 -0400
            Re: Routers and Subnets Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-15 18:49 +0000
              Re: Routers and Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-16 01:04 +0100
                Re: Routers and Subnets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-09-16 02:54 +0000
                Re: Routers and Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-16 07:05 +0200
                  Re: Routers and Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-16 11:34 +0100
              Re: Routers and Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-16 00:50 -0400
          Re: Routers and Subnets Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-15 10:21 +0100
            Re: Routers and Subnets John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-09-15 11:28 +0200
          Re: Routers and Subnets Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-09-15 05:29 -0700
            Re: Routers and Subnets Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2026-09-15 20:16 +0300
            Re: Routers and Subnets Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-15 23:45 +0000
          Re: Routers and Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-15 20:34 +0200
            Re: Routers and Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-16 00:48 -0400
              Re: Routers and Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-16 07:10 +0200
        Re: Routers and Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-15 07:59 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#91412 — Routers and Subnets

Breeched this subject a while ago - NOW it's
becoming more relevant for me.

My router is currently set for 255.255.255.0,
ie /24

What I'm likely to NEED is /23 ... which will
encompass 0.x AND 1.x

NOT sure my router can deal with it, but it
SEEMS the, technically, correct solution.

Modern net shit almost always defaults to
either .0.0 or .1.0

The prob is that this is pretty much 50/50.
Anything outside the small subnet and you
can't SEE it.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#91415

c186282 wrote:

> My router is currently set for 255.255.255.0,
> ie /24
> 
> What I'm likely to NEED is /23
Q1: do you control your router or does your ISP control it?

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

#91416

On 2026-09-14 07:45, c186282 wrote:
> Breeched this subject a while ago - NOW it's
> becoming more relevant for me.
> 
> My router is currently set for 255.255.255.0,
> ie /24
> 
> What I'm likely to NEED is /23 ... which will
> encompass 0.x AND 1.x
> 
> NOT sure my router can deal with it, but it
> SEEMS the, technically, correct solution.
> 
> Modern net shit almost always defaults to
> either .0.0 or .1.0
> 
> The prob is that this is pretty much 50/50.
> Anything outside the small subnet and you
> can't SEE it.
> 

Well, try to set a 23 or 22.

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

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

#91426

On 14/09/2026 06:45, c186282 wrote:
> Breeched this subject a while ago - NOW it's
> becoming more relevant for me.
> 
> My router is currently set for 255.255.255.0,
> ie /24
> 
> What I'm likely to NEED is /23 ... which will
> encompass 0.x AND 1.x
> 
> NOT sure my router can deal with it, but it
> SEEMS the, technically, correct solution.
> 
> Modern net shit almost always defaults to
> either .0.0 or .1.0
> 
> The prob is that this is pretty much 50/50.
> Anything outside the small subnet and you
> can't SEE it.
> 
You can make the subnet size what you want, but it is 'unconventional' 
and means that a lot of the documentations and standard defaults will change

Normal practice if a class C is too small is to create a class B. Or 
have multiple class Cs. which limits broadcast traffic if they can be 
physically separated



-- 
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over 
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that 
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

  Frédéric Bastiat

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

#91430

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> Breeched this subject a while ago - NOW it's becoming more relevant 
> for me.
> 
> My router is currently set for 255.255.255.0, ie /24
> 
> What I'm likely to NEED is /23 ...  which will encompass 0.x AND 1.x
> 
> NOT sure my router can deal with it, but it SEEMS the, technically, 
> correct solution.

Why don't you try and see?

> Modern net shit almost always defaults to either .0.0 or .1.0

Yes, but that only matters if it *also* does not let you set a 
different netmask.  If it does let you set a different netmask, then 
reconfigure it for the larger subnet and move on to the next device.

> The prob is that this is pretty much 50/50.  Anything outside the 
> small subnet and you can't SEE it.

That's the entire point of "subnets".

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

#91450

On 9/14/26 13:12, Rich wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> Breeched this subject a while ago - NOW it's becoming more relevant
>> for me.
>>
>> My router is currently set for 255.255.255.0, ie /24
>>
>> What I'm likely to NEED is /23 ...  which will encompass 0.x AND 1.x
>>
>> NOT sure my router can deal with it, but it SEEMS the, technically,
>> correct solution.
> 
> Why don't you try and see?

   Did. Can't. You can set the IPV4 address to
   anything you want but the subnet box only lets
   you set the LAST digit.

>> Modern net shit almost always defaults to either .0.0 or .1.0
> 
> Yes, but that only matters if it *also* does not let you set a
> different netmask.  If it does let you set a different netmask, then
> reconfigure it for the larger subnet and move on to the next device.
> 
>> The prob is that this is pretty much 50/50.  Anything outside the
>> small subnet and you can't SEE it.
> 
> That's the entire point of "subnets".

   IF you can use 'em the way you need.

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

#91455

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> On 9/14/26 13:12, Rich wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>> Breeched this subject a while ago - NOW it's becoming more relevant
>>> for me.
>>>
>>> My router is currently set for 255.255.255.0, ie /24
>>>
>>> What I'm likely to NEED is /23 ...  which will encompass 0.x AND 1.x
>>>
>>> NOT sure my router can deal with it, but it SEEMS the, technically, 
>>> correct solution.
>> 
>> Why don't you try and see?
> 
>   Did.  Can't.  You can set the IPV4 address to anything you want but 
>   the subnet box only lets you set the LAST digit.

Presumably you meant "last octet" because last digit is not quite right 
here.

So it has a box 255.255.255.___ and you can only enter something in 
___.  Yeah, you are stuck at most with a /24 with that.  So your option 
now would appear to be to obtain a router that will give you more 
flexibility in how you configure it.

>>> Modern net shit almost always defaults to either .0.0 or .1.0
>> 
>> Yes, but that only matters if it *also* does not let you set a
>> different netmask.  If it does let you set a different netmask, then
>> reconfigure it for the larger subnet and move on to the next device.
>> 
>>> The prob is that this is pretty much 50/50.  Anything outside the
>>> small subnet and you can't SEE it.
>> 
>> That's the entire point of "subnets".
> 
>   IF you can use 'em the way you need.

One piece of poorly made hardware's restrictions does not change the 
basic underlying network information.  

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

#91457

On 9/14/26 21:47, Rich wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> On 9/14/26 13:12, Rich wrote:
>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>> Breeched this subject a while ago - NOW it's becoming more relevant
>>>> for me.
>>>>
>>>> My router is currently set for 255.255.255.0, ie /24
>>>>
>>>> What I'm likely to NEED is /23 ...  which will encompass 0.x AND 1.x
>>>>
>>>> NOT sure my router can deal with it, but it SEEMS the, technically,
>>>> correct solution.
>>>
>>> Why don't you try and see?
>>
>>    Did.  Can't.  You can set the IPV4 address to anything you want but
>>    the subnet box only lets you set the LAST digit.
> 
> Presumably you meant "last octet" because last digit is not quite right
> here.

   Well, close enough :-) You know what I mean.

   Anyway, my wunnerful ATT router ... CAN'T set
   a larger subnet.

   Yea, there ARE ways to set up a separate network
   and then route them together. Never done it though.
   Only attempt failed badly. The ATT router may again
   be incapable. Everything is being "dumbed down" of
   late dontchaknow.

   254 addresses ARE adequate for most anything but
   large businesses. However, as mentioned, about
   HALF the net-capable devices we buy default to
   ".0.0" or ".1.0" kinda 50/50 - which is a pain
   in the ass. DO have a USB/wired dongle I can use
   to set up like IP cams and such, set IT to ".0.1",
   but that's not super smooth for EVERYTHING.

> So it has a box 255.255.255.___ and you can only enter something in
> ___.  Yeah, you are stuck at most with a /24 with that.  So your option
> now would appear to be to obtain a router that will give you more
> flexibility in how you configure it.
> 
>>>> Modern net shit almost always defaults to either .0.0 or .1.0
>>>
>>> Yes, but that only matters if it *also* does not let you set a
>>> different netmask.  If it does let you set a different netmask, then
>>> reconfigure it for the larger subnet and move on to the next device.
>>>
>>>> The prob is that this is pretty much 50/50.  Anything outside the
>>>> small subnet and you can't SEE it.
>>>
>>> That's the entire point of "subnets".
>>
>>    IF you can use 'em the way you need.
> 
> One piece of poorly made hardware's restrictions does not change the
> basic underlying network information.

   No, not at all. But we still have to DEAL with
   all this "poorly made" equipment as best we can.

   MY interest was in "best we can".

   Alas, in this case, thwarted.

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

#91466

On 15/09/2026 07:13, c186282 wrote:
> No, not at all. But we still have to DEAL with
>    all this "poorly made" equipment as best we can.
> 
>    MY interest was in "best we can".
> 
>    Alas, in this case, thwarted.

Welcome to the USA

-- 
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

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

#91468

On 9/14/26 21:47, Rich wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> On 9/14/26 13:12, Rich wrote:
>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>> Breeched this subject a while ago - NOW it's becoming more relevant
>>>> for me.
>>>>
>>>> My router is currently set for 255.255.255.0, ie /24
>>>>
>>>> What I'm likely to NEED is /23 ...  which will encompass 0.x AND 1.x
>>>>
>>>> NOT sure my router can deal with it, but it SEEMS the, technically,
>>>> correct solution.
>>>
>>> Why don't you try and see?
>>
>>    Did.  Can't.  You can set the IPV4 address to anything you want but
>>    the subnet box only lets you set the LAST digit.
> 
> Presumably you meant "last octet" because last digit is not quite right
> here.

   Where did my post go ? Can't see it.

   Anyway, ya knew what I meant.

   Devices have become dumber and dumber. "They"
   are SURE they "know what's best", "know what
   you want/need".

   Or IN THEIR BEST COMMERCIAL INTERESTS ...

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

#91496

On 2026-09-15, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

>    Devices have become dumber and dumber. "They"
>    are SURE they "know what's best", "know what
>    you want/need".

What's best is that you give them money.
What you want/need is to give them money.

>    Or IN THEIR BEST COMMERCIAL INTERESTS ...

Bingo.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

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

#91514

On 15/09/2026 19:49, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>     Or IN THEIR BEST COMMERCIAL INTERESTS ...
> Bingo.

Indeed. When the internet started, setting it all up took a fair degree 
of skill. The major ISPS wanted a plug'n'play style solution: limiting 
the options and supplying preconfigured routers ensured that...

MY router allows 255.255.254.0/23 as a selectable option

But it cost about $350


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

- George Orwell

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

#91530

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 15/09/2026 19:49, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>     Or IN THEIR BEST COMMERCIAL INTERESTS ...
>> Bingo.
> 
> Indeed. When the internet started, setting it all up took a fair degree 
> of skill. The major ISPS wanted a plug'n'play style solution: limiting 
> the options and supplying preconfigured routers ensured that...
> 
> MY router allows 255.255.254.0/23 as a selectable option
> 
> But it cost about $350

Mine's an old PC motherboard from several "PC"'s ago now, running 
Linux.

And as I use the 10.0.0.0 IP range in my own net (I prefer typing 
10.0.0. vs 192.168.1.) I could go all the way up 10/8 if I wanted to.

I've no reason to, as /24 still fits my needs nicely.  Speed of light 
guy has way too many IoT devices if he's running out of addresses with 
256 total on the subnet.

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

#91537

On 2026-09-16 02:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 15/09/2026 19:49, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>     Or IN THEIR BEST COMMERCIAL INTERESTS ...
>> Bingo.
> 
> Indeed. When the internet started, setting it all up took a fair degree 
> of skill. The major ISPS wanted a plug'n'play style solution: limiting 
> the options and supplying preconfigured routers ensured that...
> 
> MY router allows 255.255.254.0/23 as a selectable option
> 
> But it cost about $350

My router allows any mask (I use 255.255.0.0) and in theory any address.

It costs me ZERO.




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

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

#91564

On 16/09/2026 06:05, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2026-09-16 02:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 15/09/2026 19:49, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>     Or IN THEIR BEST COMMERCIAL INTERESTS ...
>>> Bingo.
>>
>> Indeed. When the internet started, setting it all up took a fair 
>> degree of skill. The major ISPS wanted a plug'n'play style solution: 
>> limiting the options and supplying preconfigured routers ensured that...
>>
>> MY router allows 255.255.254.0/23 as a selectable option
>>
>> But it cost about $350
> 
> My router allows any mask (I use 255.255.0.0) and in theory any address.
> 
> It costs me ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
I very much doubt that.

> 

-- 
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as 
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

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

#91536

On 9/15/26 14:49, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-09-15, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> 
>>     Devices have become dumber and dumber. "They"
>>     are SURE they "know what's best", "know what
>>     you want/need".
> 
> What's best is that you give them money.
> What you want/need is to give them money.
> 
>>     Or IN THEIR BEST COMMERCIAL INTERESTS ...
> 
> Bingo.
> 

   Well, nothing's free.

   But for non-free I'd like OPTIONS.

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

#91473

On 2026-09-15, Rich wrote:

> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> On 9/14/26 13:12, Rich wrote:
>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>> Breeched this subject a while ago - NOW it's becoming more relevant
>>>> for me.
>>>>
>>>> My router is currently set for 255.255.255.0, ie /24
>>>>
>>>> What I'm likely to NEED is /23 ...  which will encompass 0.x AND 1.x
>>>>
>>>> NOT sure my router can deal with it, but it SEEMS the, technically, 
>>>> correct solution.
>>> 
>>> Why don't you try and see?
>> 
>>   Did.  Can't.  You can set the IPV4 address to anything you want but 
>>   the subnet box only lets you set the LAST digit.
>
> Presumably you meant "last octet" because last digit is not quite right 
> here.
>
> So it has a box 255.255.255.___ and you can only enter something in 
> ___.  Yeah, you are stuck at most with a /24 with that.  So your option 
> now would appear to be to obtain a router that will give you more 
> flexibility in how you configure it.
>
>>>> Modern net shit almost always defaults to either .0.0 or .1.0
>>> 
>>> Yes, but that only matters if it *also* does not let you set a
>>> different netmask.  If it does let you set a different netmask, then
>>> reconfigure it for the larger subnet and move on to the next device.
>>> 
>>>> The prob is that this is pretty much 50/50.  Anything outside the
>>>> small subnet and you can't SEE it.
>>> 
>>> That's the entire point of "subnets".
>> 
>>   IF you can use 'em the way you need.
>
> One piece of poorly made hardware's restrictions does not change the 
> basic underlying network information.  

It may be worth checking if it has any other configuration interface
(with nmap, perhaps?) that exposes more options or configurability. I
think at one point I saw a Huawei router-modem which had a somewhat
limited web UI compared to the interface over telnet... sadly, these
days, it may be the case the web interface is all you get...

-- 
Nuno Silva

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

#91474

On 15/09/2026 11:21, Nuno Silva wrote:

[...]

> It may be worth checking if it has any other configuration interface
> (with nmap, perhaps?) that exposes more options or configurability. I
> think at one point I saw a Huawei router-modem which had a somewhat
> limited web UI compared to the interface over telnet... sadly, these
> days, it may be the case the web interface is all you get...

The router I use has both a web interface and is reachable over SSH (not 
on the WAN side!). It uses its own version of OpenWrt.

-- 
Static tumblelog generator: https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog/
Available as Python or Perl. Example tumblelog: https://plurrrr.com/

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

#91475

On 9/14/2026 18:47, Rich wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> On 9/14/26 13:12, Rich wrote:
>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>> Breeched this subject a while ago - NOW it's becoming more relevant
>>>> for me.
>>>>
>>>> My router is currently set for 255.255.255.0, ie /24
>>>>
>>>> What I'm likely to NEED is /23 ...  which will encompass 0.x AND 1.x
>>>>
>>>> NOT sure my router can deal with it, but it SEEMS the, technically,
>>>> correct solution.
>>>
>>> Why don't you try and see?
>>
>>    Did.  Can't.  You can set the IPV4 address to anything you want but
>>    the subnet box only lets you set the LAST digit.
> 
> Presumably you meant "last octet" because last digit is not quite right
> here.
> 
> So it has a box 255.255.255.___ and you can only enter something in
> ___.  Yeah, you are stuck at most with a /24 with that.  So your option
> now would appear to be to obtain a router that will give you more
> flexibility in how you configure it.
> 
>>>> Modern net shit almost always defaults to either .0.0 or .1.0
>>>
>>> Yes, but that only matters if it *also* does not let you set a
>>> different netmask.  If it does let you set a different netmask, then
>>> reconfigure it for the larger subnet and move on to the next device.
>>>
>>>> The prob is that this is pretty much 50/50.  Anything outside the
>>>> small subnet and you can't SEE it.
>>>
>>> That's the entire point of "subnets".
>>
>>    IF you can use 'em the way you need.
> 
> One piece of poorly made hardware's restrictions does not change the
> basic underlying network information.

This is why I HATE the "simple" solution of combining the 
DSL/cable/fiber modem, the edge router and the WiFi access point into a 
single box. In my house, I have a fiber internet service, and Frontier 
gave me a box like that, for which they can/will not give me a user 
manual, and since it was custom made for Frontier, there is no 
documentation to be found on the 'net. So I have a fixed IP address 
provisioned on it, and use it only as a modem, then put my own edge 
router next to it, and the wifi access point somewhere else, the way God 
intended it.

But their "simple solution" takes up a lot of space on the network shelf 
in my closet, where I have to have my UPS, their AC/DC power thingie, a 
"fiber termination unit" and then their "combo router", followed by my 
edge router and "root switch". And to think that this is for a "business 
account".

-- 
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California

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

#91484

Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> writes:

> This is why I HATE the "simple" solution of combining the
> DSL/cable/fiber modem, the edge router and the WiFi access point into
> a single box.

Ah, the joys of dark fiber. I just run Debian Linux on my router, wifi
APs are store bought Linux boxes. Radius (for serious authentication)
runs on a Raspberry Pi currently.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web