Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #1775
| From | Markus Koßmann <mkossmann_n1@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.networking |
| Subject | Re: 192.168 |
| Date | 2012-10-21 15:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <aei5u6F5m1rU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <h9Jfs.16577$vv4.13491@newsfe02.iad> <876268i40f.fsf@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk> <k5qpom$72q$1@node1.news.atman.pl> <fpHgs.921$rn3.646@newsfe13.iad> <slrnk87j3j.pn1.orcus@orcus.wcss.wroc.pl> |
orcus@pwr.wroc.pl wrote:
> In my network I have 10 networks 10.[0-10].0.0/16 and a router
> connecting them. Am I able to set up routing for these subnets?
> That range is clearly "routable".
>
Well, RFC1918 says:
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)
[...]
So you are free to setup whatever routing you want inbetween your private
subnet(s). But every connection from one of your subnets to the "non-
private" internet has to use NAT (like connections from the 192.168.x.x
range)
Back to comp.os.linux.networking | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
192.168 bob@coolfone.comze.com - 2012-10-17 08:37 -0700
Re: 192.168 Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2012-10-17 16:40 +0100
Re: 192.168 ein <ein@no.spam> - 2012-10-17 20:04 +0200
Re: 192.168 Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2012-10-17 21:23 +0200
Re: 192.168 ein <ein@no.spam> - 2012-10-17 22:37 +0200
Re: 192.168 Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2012-10-18 18:29 +0200
Re: 192.168 ein <ein@no.spam> - 2012-10-19 07:54 +0200
Re: 192.168 Maurizio Loreti <mlo@foobar.it> - 2012-10-17 20:37 +0200
Re: 192.168 unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-10-18 01:43 +0000
Re: 192.168 Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2012-10-18 09:22 +0100
Re: 192.168 ein <ein@no.spam> - 2012-10-19 07:51 +0200
Re: 192.168 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-10-19 12:16 +0200
Re: 192.168 orcus@pwr.wroc.pl - 2012-10-19 18:54 +0000
Re: 192.168 Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-10-20 06:51 +0000
Re: 192.168 orcus@pwr.wroc.pl - 2012-10-20 07:46 +0000
Re: 192.168 Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-10-20 08:00 +0000
Re: 192.168 orcus@pwr.wroc.pl - 2012-10-20 13:43 +0000
Re: 192.168 Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-10-20 14:15 +0000
Re: 192.168 orcus@pwr.wroc.pl - 2012-10-20 14:54 +0000
Re: 192.168 Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid> - 2012-10-20 15:21 -0500
Re: 192.168 Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid> - 2012-10-20 15:20 -0500
Re: 192.168 Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2012-10-20 13:55 +0200
Re: 192.168 unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-10-21 00:33 +0000
Re: 192.168 orcus@pwr.wroc.pl - 2012-10-21 10:22 +0000
Re: 192.168 Markus Koßmann <mkossmann_n1@gmx.de> - 2012-10-21 15:53 +0200
Re: 192.168 GangGreene <GangGreene@example.com> - 2012-10-21 07:06 -0400
Re: 192.168 Vanni <Vanniz@nospam.thanks> - 2012-10-18 07:56 +0200
Re: 192.168 Johann Klammer <klammerj@NOSPAM.a1.net> - 2012-10-18 06:40 +0200
csiph-web