Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #1756

Re: 192.168

From	ein <ein@no.spam>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.networking
Subject	Re: 192.168
Date	2012-10-19 07:51 +0200
Organization	ATMAN - ATM S.A.
Message-ID	<k5qpom$72q$1@node1.news.atman.pl> (permalink)
References	<6058c85a-c77d-4853-9ca0-7e2b7f875bf9@googlegroups.com> <h9Jfs.16577$vv4.13491@newsfe02.iad> <876268i40f.fsf@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk>

Show all headers | View raw

-----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-----

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