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

Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #1743 > unrolled thread

192.168

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

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#1743 — 192.168

Why is it that almost all LAN devices start with 192.168?  Why such a strange and hard-to-memorize number?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1744

bob@coolfone.comze.com writes:
> Why is it that almost all LAN devices start with 192.168?  Why such a
> strange and hard-to-memorize number?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918

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

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

#1745

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> bob@coolfone.comze.com writes:
>> Why is it that almost all LAN devices start with 192.168?  Why
>> such a strange and hard-to-memorize number?
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918
> 

It's easy when you use it 10 times a day.:)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlB+8yoACgkQbhT/MDrqNUHjIACff7OC1Br4Wb/2louyV+s7row2
KAUAnj6gKXcG5Je7/339yEYzIlNZ6L8T
=Z4hx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#1747

ein <ein@no.spam> wrote:
>Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> bob@coolfone.comze.com writes:
>>> Why is it that almost all LAN devices start with 192.168?  Why
>>> such a strange and hard-to-memorize number?
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918
>> 
>
>It's easy when you use it 10 times a day.:)

And really strange when your official IP range is from 194.162/16.

Greetings
Marc, btdt
-- 
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

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

#1748

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Marc Haber wrote:
> ein <ein@no.spam> wrote:
>> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> bob@coolfone.comze.com writes:
>>>> Why is it that almost all LAN devices start with 192.168?
>>>> Why such a strange and hard-to-memorize number?
>>> 
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918
>>> 
>> 
>> It's easy when you use it 10 times a day.:)
> 
> And really strange when your official IP range is from 194.162/16.

198.162 would be better. ;)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlB/FvEACgkQbhT/MDrqNUEqpQCfQKe24HfUy8+6jqo3v/PFh8O0
WLUAoLiOe3Ck3GwyG0LGoMmfhrhXE9No
=fAZl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#1755

ein <ein@no.spam> wrote:
>Marc Haber wrote:
>> ein <ein@no.spam> wrote:
>>> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>> bob@coolfone.comze.com writes:
>>>>> Why is it that almost all LAN devices start with 192.168?
>>>>> Why such a strange and hard-to-memorize number?
>>>> 
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> It's easy when you use it 10 times a day.:)
>> 
>> And really strange when your official IP range is from 194.162/16.
>
>198.162 would be better. ;)

198/8 was not allocated back when my connected hosts were in
194.162/16. Since then, I made it a habit to check IP addresses for
mixed digits first thing in debugging.

Greetings
Ma "192.162, 194.168" rc
-- 
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

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

#1757

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Marc Haber wrote:
> ein <ein@no.spam> wrote:
>> Marc Haber wrote:
>>> ein <ein@no.spam> wrote:
>>>> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>> bob@coolfone.comze.com writes:
>>>>>> Why is it that almost all LAN devices start with
>>>>>> 192.168? Why such a strange and hard-to-memorize number?
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> It's easy when you use it 10 times a day.:)
>>> 
>>> And really strange when your official IP range is from
>>> 194.162/16.
>> 
>> 198.162 would be better. ;)
> 
> 198/8 was not allocated back when my connected hosts were in 
> 194.162/16. Since then, I made it a habit to check IP addresses
> for mixed digits first thing in debugging.

It hurts when I'm looking at these addresses. :)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlCA6wsACgkQbhT/MDrqNUEJ4QCfW8bXTzX7+fIjp3T4fsSx5AvJ
cuMAoIrKLCufU+2ez53koQBam70qCpmm
=v99K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#1746

bob@coolfone.comze.com writes:

> Why is it that almost all LAN devices start with 192.168?  Why such a
> strange and hard-to-memorize number?

They are "round numbers" in the binary system.  192 dec is 300 oct.

-- 
(@_  | Maurizio Loreti
//\  |
V_/_ | EMail/ROT13: Znhevmvb.Ybergv@tznvy.pbz

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

#1749

On 2012-10-17, bob@coolfone.comze.com <bob@coolfone.comze.com> wrote:
> Why is it that almost all LAN devices start with 192.168?  Why such a strange and hard-to-memorize number?

And why would you want to memorize it? 
That is a private address reange, non-routable on the internet. Used by
networks which use dhcp to supply temporary addresses to clients.

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

#1752

unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes:
> On 2012-10-17, bob@coolfone.comze.com <bob@coolfone.comze.com> wrote:

>> Why is it that almost all LAN devices start with 192.168?  Why such a
>> strange and hard-to-memorize number?
>
> And why would you want to memorize it? 
> That is a private address reange, non-routable on the internet.
> Used by networks which use dhcp to supply temporary addresses to
> clients.

There’s no particular connection between the private address ranges and
dynamic addressing.  It’s perfectly possible to use fixed private
addresses or dynamic globally routable addresses.

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

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

#1756

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes:
>> On 2012-10-17, bob@coolfone.comze.com <bob@coolfone.comze.com>
>> wrote:
> 
>>> Why is it that almost all LAN devices start with 192.168?  Why
>>> such a strange and hard-to-memorize number?
>> 
>> And why would you want to memorize it? That is a private address
>> reange, non-routable on the internet.

IMHO there's no such thing like non-routable IP address range, but
more safe definition would be that private IP address ranges should be
excluded (filtred) in the Internet. Common ISPs mistake is that
private ranges are in routing tables or even announced by their BGP
routers.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlCA6mEACgkQbhT/MDrqNUHpQQCfQNiv76oD6GH0ZBkgAgaQiMjt
hOUAoKgmAaIyXlsILuu9TyUa5YZxQtKT
=eY7k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#1758

ein wrote:

> unruh wrote:
>
>> And why would you want to memorize it? That is a private address
>> reange, non-routable on the internet.
> 
> 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

   Because private addresses have no global meaning, routing information
   about private networks shall not be propagated on inter-enterprise
   links, and packets with private source or destination addresses
   should not be forwarded across such links. Routers in networks not
   using private address space, especially those of Internet service
   providers, are expected to be configured to reject (filter out)
   routing information about private networks. If such a router receives
   such information the rejection shall not be treated as a routing
   protocol error.

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

#1759

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).

-- 
Regards
orcus

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

#1760

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?

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

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

#1761

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

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

#1762

On Sat, 2012-10-20, orcus@pwr.wroc.pl wrote:
> 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".

Those ISPs are violating RFC1918, and do not count.  If an address
shows up in traceroute output, I should be able to access it.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

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

#1765

On 2012-10-20, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-10-20, orcus@pwr.wroc.pl wrote:
>> 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".
>
> Those ISPs are violating RFC1918, and do not count.  If an address
> shows up in traceroute output, I should be able to access it.

Which fragment fragment of RFC they violate? They use private addresses 
inside their network and filter out routing information about this
subnets. I see no violation. Moreover using 4 IP addresses from ranges
assigned to ISP for point to point links is a waste of IPv4 addresses.

If we exclude ISPs from our discussion we still can use 10
subnets with private addresses in our company and set up routing for
them(even dynamic). The point is that calling RFC1918 addresses 
"non-routeable" is semantic abuse*.

*) Is "semantic abuse" correct phrase in English? 

-- 
Best Regards
orcus

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

#1766

On Sat, 2012-10-20, orcus@pwr.wroc.pl wrote:
> On 2012-10-20, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2012-10-20, orcus@pwr.wroc.pl wrote:
>>> 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".
>>
>> Those ISPs are violating RFC1918, and do not count.  If an address
>> shows up in traceroute output, I should be able to access it.
>
> Which fragment fragment of RFC they violate? They use private addresses 
> inside their network and filter out routing information about this
> subnets. I see no violation.

You say you can see e.g. 192.168.1.2 in traceroute output.  That means
you have actually received an ICMP time exceeded (or whatever it's
called) message from that host.  Surely then it's not just "inside their
network"?

I may have a host 192.168.1.2 in my local network already. I cannot
think right now of any bad effects of getting ICMP from a doppelganger
(except for confusion in the logs) but I'd prefer for it never to
happen!

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

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

#1767

On 2012-10-20, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-10-20, orcus@pwr.wroc.pl wrote:
>> Which fragment fragment of RFC they violate? They use private addresses 
>> inside their network and filter out routing information about this
>> subnets. I see no violation.
>
> You say you can see e.g. 192.168.1.2 in traceroute output.  That means
> you have actually received an ICMP time exceeded (or whatever it's
> called) message from that host.  Surely then it's not just "inside their
> network"?

In RFC traffic blocking is only recommendation. ISPs are blocking almost
all traffic with private sources or destinations, but:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1812.txt:
If the TTL is reduced to zero (or less), the packet MUST be
discarded, and if the destination is not a multicast address the
router MUST send an ICMP Time Exceeded message, Code 0 (TTL Exceeded
in Transit) message to the source.  

MUST in RFC is not a recommendation like SHOULD(I think there is RFC
about this words meaning).

> I may have a host 192.168.1.2 in my local network already. I cannot
> think right now of any bad effects of getting ICMP from a doppelganger
> (except for confusion in the logs) but I'd prefer for it never to
> happen!

That ICMP packet will contain IP header and some part of payload of
discarded packet. Any software that is logging network flows should 
be able to match it with correct stream. If you use "flat" network
packets logging(one packet - one entry) you should see which packet
was discarded. For example: linux iptables LOG target dumps discarded
IP header in square brackets.

-- 
Best Regards
orcus

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

#1770

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
article <slrnk85el1.mg0.orcus@orcus.wcss.wroc.pl>, orcus@pwr.wroc.pl wrote:

>MUST in RFC is not a recommendation like SHOULD(I think there is RFC
>about this words meaning).

  [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

        Old guy

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web