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: Tom on 30 Mar 2010 13:08 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? Thanks...
From: Rob on 30 Mar 2010 13:20 Tom <tdenham735(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 ???
From: Mark Huizer on 30 Mar 2010 13:23 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
From: Doug McIntyre on 30 Mar 2010 14:09 Rob <nomail(a)example.com> writes: >Tom <tdenham735(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.
From: Tom on 30 Mar 2010 14:23
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. Thanks much! |