RE: [smartBridges] LAN side IP Addresses

[TopsailNet]

Title: Message

The DHCP is providing public addresses, not 192.168.0.x addresses - it's working well but has thrown me a curve by giving one of my radios a public address - but that was before I started using simpleDeploy to insure that the radio doesn't ask for an address when it's reset.   So, you agree that allowing customers to use 192.168.0.x addresses is not a good idea?   Harvey -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Mark P. Sullivan Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 3:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [smartBridges] LAN side IP Addresses If I were you, I wouldn’t be running DHCP on the 192.168.0.x subnet.  That is a typical “default” subnet..and I don’t do ANYTHING by default.   You don’t want your client on the same subnet…that is for sure.   Sully   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TopsailNet Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 11:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [smartBridges] LAN side IP Addresses   I have all my sB wireless devices set up with 192.168.0.x addresses. All clients connected to the wireless network either have static public addresses assigned or use DHCP to obtain a public address.   I have instructed my customers that use a DSL/Cable router to connect a network, not to use 192.168.0.x on the LAN side of their router.   Now I have a customer that insists he must use 192.168.0.x on his LAN (I won't go into his reasoning)   If I allow him to use this sub-net on his LAN, my concern is that some fat-fingered IT person will inadvertently (or intentionally) turn off NAT on his DSL/Cable router and flood my wireless network with a bunch of duplicate 192.168.0.x addresses that may bring down my wireless network.   Is this a valid concern on my part? Any voice of experience will be appreciated.