On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 08:42:31AM +0000, Robert de Bath wrote: > > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Tom Oehser wrote: > > > >> I'll probably maybe change it to something like 10.254.253.252, as that > >> will probably be less likely to be really in use than 192.168.0.1, which > >> is common in real private networks. > > >> Clark.net is not in use, just start with the mirrors on www.toms.net/rb/, > >> such as Tux or Utx, and look in the add-ons directoriy. > > > Damn right, I use 192.168.0.1 myself! > > > Just a thought though, I think the 172.16.0.0/12 range is even less used > > especially toward the top eg: 172.30.255.1 > > > 172.31.255.* would be the topmost (class C-sized) subnet in the > class B range from RFC1918.
I have seen 172.31.* used once or twice, that's why I suggested .30.. > There's also the 169.254.0.0 (DHCP autoconfiguration) block though I > can't find the a document that explains when this was standardized and > who was/were responsible. Hmm, yes http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3330.html mentions it but doesn't eloborate. Personally I always thought it was one allocated by Microsoft when they hacked NETBIOS on top of IP; like Sun's 192.0.0.0 addresses. -- Rob. (Robert de Bath <robert$ @ debath.co.uk>) <http://www.cix.co.uk/~mayday> Google Homepage: http://www.google.com/search?btnI&q=Robert+de+Bath
