"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zbsdneivucyrrafunz2dnuvz_oodn...@giganews.com...
[...]
> This won't solve the OP's problem as I understand it.
But this time, that's not the OP's or his problem's fault.
> RFC-1918 prescribes three address families for private networks:
> 192.168.1.X
> 172.16.X.Y
> 10.X.Y.Z
It does not. Please stop treating Dave Hart as an idiot and spend
some productive time rereading RFC1918. While you're at it, find
out about CIDR and see if you can figure out that the three ranges
are really
192.168.W.X (not just .1.X),
172.16-31.X.Y (not just 172.16), and
10.X.Y.Z.
At least you got that last one right.
Randomising which subrange you use _does_ solve these routing
problems most of the time, just like generating a random host
id does solve the undetected loop problem _most of the time_.
My home network is on 192.168.27/24. I took the number from my
street address. My brother (independently!) picked 53 for his
network, by the same mechanism[0]. We have an OpenVPN tunnel
between those networks. We have no routing problems.
Groetjes,
Maarten Wiltink
[0] And when they renumbered his house, he renumbered his
network. Okay, I wouldn't have done that.
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
