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: Robert Bonomi on 17 Apr 2010 17:50 In article <dcc2dd8e-1cd8-481c-81b0-e92ba4a82fd9(a)k13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Tom <tdenham735(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mar 30, 2:09�pm, Doug McIntyre <mer...(a)geeks.org> wrote: >> Rob <nom...(a)example.com> writes: >> >Tom <tdenham...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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? >> >You probably mean 169.254.x.x ??? >> >> I'm guessing as well that he really means 169.254.0.0/16. >> The reserved link-local IP address block. > >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. 192.169.0.0/23 is assigned to 'psg.com'. 192.169.2.0/22 is assigned to 'uu.net'. 192.169.6.0/24 is not assigned to anybody _yet_. *Nothing in '192.169.0.0/16 should be used as 'private' address space. It is _guaranteed_ you will have problems with it down the road. The authoritative reference for what is usable as 'private' addresses is RFC 1918.
From: Robert Bonomi on 17 Apr 2010 18:05 In article <5b3293f1-e96e-4fa8-9d9d-1e6b9c1493e0(a)r1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, scott owens <scottowens12(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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 Does the block 192.0.68.0/24 ring any bells with you? There was a company -- a user of Sun microsystems workstations, that *registered* that block as their space. Oddly enough, they started getting complaint calls from *ALL*OVER* about why machines from their network were doing 'bad things' to other networks. For those who don't know/remember, 192.0.68.x was the default address-space used by Sun for _all_ the products they shipped. (This was long before CIDR _or_ RFC 1918) *EVERYBODY* who wasn't Internet connected just used that default address-space. Which made for all sorts of 'fun and games' when they _did_ get a 'net connection. <wry grin> _Using_ 192.0.68.x was somewhat understandable. registering 'ownership' of it, *and* arranging for it to be =routed= to your location was a _really_ BAD IDEA(tm)!! When I discovered that registration, I spoke the admin there (they were a vendor we dealt with), and said "you didn't _really_....?", got a _very_ embarrassed "yeah, well, we DIDN'T know any better at the time" response. the only good thing that came out of it was that they very rapidly developed a _LARGE_ (**VERY* large) pool of admin contacts at other networks. On more than one occasion when I was chasing something down, I'd simply call that admin, and ask "who's the contact for ....." and he'd have the instant answer. :)
From: bod43 on 18 Apr 2010 20:23
On 2 Apr, 18:40, 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:) Sorry for the delay. Thing is if I was presented with a product that required *ANY* static IP range other than one registered to the product's manufacturer I would ROFL. Then I would kick the sales team out - forever. If I found that some product was using an address range registered to someone else I would have them escorted from the premises and make sure that we never dealt with them ever again in any capacity. What you describe is simply stupid. |