Private vs Public IP's
in [Cisco]
|
Prev: Windows 7 and Client 5.0.05.0290 Starting before log on...
Next: spanning-tree / Err-Disable finding the loop via software
From: Doug McIntyre on 30 Mar 2010 15:03 Tom <tdenham735(a)gmail.com> writes: >Nope...it's 192.169.2.1 and a few others with 192.169.x.x... I just >wanted to make sure because I need to point this out in a meeting. I >didn't think they should be used, but just wanted a little validation. 192.169.2.0/23 & 192.169.4.0/24 have been allocated to FMC Technologies, Inc. So its definately not private space.
From: bod43 on 1 Apr 2010 12:30 On 30 Mar, 18:23, Mark Huizer <xaa+news_comp.dcom.sys.ci...(a)dohd.org> wrote: > The wise Tom enlightened me with: > > > I know that the private network ranges of 192.168.0.0, 10.0.0.0 and > > 172.16.0.0..thru 172.31.0.0 are used for internal LAN's. > > > However I'm seeing a lot of usage lately on internal networks using > > 192.169.1.1 and 192.169.1.4, and sometimes 192.169.2.1...etc... I > > thought these were public IP's. Just curious because I've seen this > > quite often recently. > > > Is there something I'm missing here with the 192.169.0.0 networks? > > Is this a new reservation that I'm not aware of? > > I guess these are people who don't really care about the public networks > they can't reach anymore. It's still public IP space > > Mark I would guess that it might have started with a typo, or perhaps someone followed on from 168. As discussed, it is in the Public address space.
From: Tom on 2 Apr 2010 13:40 On Apr 1, 12:30 pm, bod43 <Bo...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > On 30 Mar, 18:23, Mark Huizer <xaa+news_comp.dcom.sys.ci...(a)dohd.org> > wrote: > > > > > The wise Tom enlightened me with: > > > > I know that the private network ranges of 192.168.0.0, 10.0.0.0 and > > > 172.16.0.0..thru 172.31.0.0 are used for internal LAN's. > > > > However I'm seeing a lot of usage lately on internal networks using > > > 192.169.1.1 and 192.169.1.4, and sometimes 192.169.2.1...etc... I > > > thought these were public IP's. Just curious because I've seen this > > > quite often recently. > > > > Is there something I'm missing here with the 192.169.0.0 networks? > > > Is this a new reservation that I'm not aware of? > > > I guess these are people who don't really care about the public networks > > they can't reach anymore. It's still public IP space > > > Mark > > I would guess that it might have started with a typo, or perhaps > someone followed on from 168. > > As discussed, it is in the Public address space. Thanks Everyone...turns out that the person who is doing this just does not accept it as a problem and I'm having to pound it into upper management to try to get them to see the importance because it's part of our product. Thanks for the comments:)
From: scott owens on 4 Apr 2010 07:24 On Apr 2, 11:40 am, Tom <tdenham...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 1, 12:30 pm, bod43 <Bo...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On 30 Mar, 18:23, Mark Huizer <xaa+news_comp.dcom.sys.ci...(a)dohd.org> > > wrote: > > > > The wise Tom enlightened me with: > > > > > I know that the private network ranges of 192.168.0.0, 10.0.0.0 and > > > > 172.16.0.0..thru 172.31.0.0 are used for internal LAN's. > > > > > However I'm seeing a lot of usage lately on internal networks using > > > > 192.169.1.1 and 192.169.1.4, and sometimes 192.169.2.1...etc... I > > > > thought these were public IP's. Just curious because I've seen this > > > > quite often recently. > > > > > Is there something I'm missing here with the 192.169.0.0 networks? > > > > Is this a new reservation that I'm not aware of? > > > > I guess these are people who don't really care about the public networks > > > they can't reach anymore. It's still public IP space > > > > Mark > > > I would guess that it might have started with a typo, or perhaps > > someone followed on from 168. > > > As discussed, it is in the Public address space. > > Thanks Everyone...turns out that the person who is doing this just > does not accept it as a problem and I'm having to pound it into upper > management to try to get them to see the importance because it's part > of our product. > > Thanks for the comments:) Funny true story - about 10 years ago I worked for an international telecommunications carrier that spun off a wireless division. The technical side folks picked as their address space that which was used by the University of North Carolina. Which of course was fine until we wanted to get to the Sun Microsystems public web repositories [ sunsite ..... ] and other similar sites Eventually they had to re- number and when I left the company (not in any way related) there were around 13,000 employees. I am not aware of a worse choice of addressing space
From: alexd on 4 Apr 2010 17:44
On 02/04/10 18:40, Tom wrote: > Thanks Everyone...turns out that the person who is doing this just > does not accept it as a problem and I'm having to pound it into upper > management to try to get them to see the importance because it's part > of our product. I wish you every success. You might like to point out to upper management that your competitors could highlight this 'feature' of your product in comparisons with their products. I have a customer with a router provided by a Large Multinational, configured with an IPsec tunnel for remote access into Large Multinational's systems [my customer writes software for them]. Large Multinational have a /22 and a few /24s carved out of two /8's, yet insist on using large swathes of both /8s internally. Every month or so I have to create another exception on my customer's ASA because they can't access yet another website, hosted by an innocent third party on an address they own in one of those /8s. -- <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm(a)ale.cx) 22:27:14 up 60 days, 4:04, 2 users, load average: 0.15, 0.27, 0.18 It is better to have been wasted and then sober than to never have been wasted at all |