21–30 of 50 posts
Something I never understood is why people choose 192.168.1.1 for private networks. Being all the other factors equal, isn't 10.1.1.1 easier to type and more "aesthetically pleasant"?
There's also 172.16.0.x, which I have never seen used by default on any networking devices.. which makes it perfect if you have a piece of network that you visibly want to separate from the rest of the LAN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One possible reason is that a lot of corporate networks use 10.x.x.x. If you’re using a similar subnet at home, using a VPN can get awkward.
Yep. We use both 10.x.x.x and 192.168.x.x at my workplace (who knows why). I had to request a special change to our VPN settings so I could still access my home network while connected to it.
Something I never understood is why people choose 192.168.1.1 for private networks. Being all the other factors equal, isn't 10.1.1.1 easier to type and more "aesthetically pleasant"?
It depends. Some use 10.0.0.x, some use 192.168.1.x and some use 192.168.178.x There's also 172.16.0.x, which I have never seen used by default on any networking devices.. which makes it perfect if you have a piece of network that you visibly want to separate from the rest of the LAN.
I gotta try out the 127.0.0.x thing at the end of the article. I never knew the range was so large!
I've resorted to using RFC 5737 (test-net-1 through 3) IP ranges for this purpose, even though that isn't what they are designed for.
I still learned about net classes, subnetting and supernetting in 2003, to me it was how networks worked till a few yeara ago :D
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. We use both 10.x.x.x and 192.168.x.x at my workplace (who knows why). I had to request a special change to our VPN settings so I could still access my home network while connected to it.
Wouldn't it have been easier to change your home network?
Something I never understood is why people choose 192.168.1.1 for private networks. Being all the other factors equal, isn't 10.1.1.1 easier to type and more "aesthetically pleasant"?
While interviewing someone for an entry-level job, I told the interviewee that there was a network using 10.0/16 (a 16-bit subnet mask, or more popularly 10.0.x.x). He corrected me and said that 10.0.0.0 networks should have an 8 bit subnet mask (10.x.x.x). On one hand, I definitely liked that he was willing to challenge me, even during an interview, and that he knew the spec (RFC 1918 does assign an 8-bit mask to the 10. private network). On the other hand, I wasn't sure he was technically correct that a 16-bit mask was wrong, even if 8-bits was 'correct', and I couldn't see what negative consequence the 16-bit subnet had - his thinking seemed a bit rigid. Anyway, maybe there are other purists who believe smaller networks should use 192.168/16, or maybe they instinctively use it because the RFC gives it the smaller network allocation. Or maybe they know something that I don't.
> isn't 10.1.1.1 easier to type and more "aesthetically pleasant"?
And it's much easier for non-technical people to understand and to remember without error. In fact, I recommend something even easier, such as 10.9.8.x. For people supporting the non-technical, those little details can save hours, even a day. I've seen cases where after hours of frustration, the support tech discovers that the user typed in something like 129.168, or 192.16.8. Great support reps are great humanitarians, able to handle those situations with grace, without humiliating the poor user, and without heavy drinking.
EDIT: clarifying edit
I wish there was a netblock reserved for packets that never leave a physical (or virtual) host, that could be used for the default internal network for things like Docker. In my case, Docker defaulted to 172.17.0.0/16, which happened to conflict with one of the IP ranges for my wing of the building at work. I've resorted to using RFC 5737 (test-net-1 through 3) IP ranges for this purpose, even though that isn't what…
Dockers main usecase just isn't purely internal, do using that ip range wouldn't make any sense
Something I never understood is why people choose 192.168.1.1 for private networks. Being all the other factors equal, isn't 10.1.1.1 easier to type and more "aesthetically pleasant"?
> Something I never understood is why people choose 192.168.1.1 for private networks While interviewing someone for an entry-level job, I told the interviewee that there was a network using 10.0/16 (a 16-bit subnet mask, or more popularly 10.0.x.x). He corrected me and said that 10.0.0.0 networks should have an 8 bit subnet mask (10.x.x.x). On one hand, I definitely liked that he was willing to challenge me, even dur…
With a /8 (especially with desktop machines) the broadcast would definitely be a major bottleneck in the network.