Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #1761

Re: 192.168

From	orcus@pwr.wroc.pl
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.networking
Subject	Re: 192.168
Date	2012-10-20 07:46 +0000
Organization	Politechnika Wroclawska
Message-ID	<slrnk84li4.l47.orcus@orcus.wcss.wroc.pl> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <876268i40f.fsf@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk> <k5qpom$72q$1@node1.news.atman.pl> <k5r98m$is7$1@dont-email.me> <slrnk838b8.idd.orcus@orcus.wcss.wroc.pl> <slrnk84ien.1d3.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2012-10-20, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-10-19, orcus@pwr.wroc.pl wrote:
>> On 2012-10-19, Noob <root@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>>> IMHO there's no such thing like non-routable IP address range,
>>>
>>> The address ranges defined in RFC1918 are non-routable by definition.
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918
>>
>> Usage of term "non-routable" is misleading. If you want you can
>> set up routes for private addresses. Every subnet using "non-routable"
>> addresses has routing set up for them(default gateway or on-link routes
>> at least).
>
> "Non-routable as far as the Internet is concerned", then?

Nope - a lot of ISPs use privete adresses to connect their routers. 
They only block trafic with wrong private or source destinations on
interfaces connected directly to clients. Sometimes we can see
"non-routable" adsresses in output of traceroute - somewere in
"Internet".

-- 
Pozdrawiam
orcus

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