Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #1757

Re: 192.168

From	ein <ein@no.spam>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.networking
Subject	Re: 192.168
Date	2012-10-19 07:54 +0200
Organization	ATMAN - ATM S.A.
Message-ID	<k5qpu0$72q$2@node1.news.atman.pl> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <87r4oxksxy.fsf@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk> <k5mrv3$1si$1@node2.news.atman.pl> <k5n0it$o6p$1@news1.tnib.de> <k5n4ta$au6$1@node2.news.atman.pl> <k5papq$ids$1@news1.tnib.de>

Show all headers | View raw

-----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-----

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