On 05/22/07 14:26, Paul Blondé wrote:
> I've noticed that a lot of people use the 192.168.X.X
subnet for
> internal networks, is this (and the less-used
10-series) a
> requirement of some RFC, or a recommendation that has
become
> tradition?
10.0.0.0-10.255.255.255, 172.16.0.0-172.31.255.255, and
192.168.0.0-192.168.255.255 are reserved for private (read
internal) use
and guaranteed to not be globally routable. As others have
stated, you
can use any address you want, though you run the risk of
being in
conflict with some subnet somewhere. Granted it is VERY
unlikely that
you will effect any one other than your self as the world
will route to
the other subnet, not you.
Please reference RFC 3330 - "Special-Use IPv4
Addresses"
(http://www.
rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3330.txt) for more information on
these and other reserved subnets.
> We are using a completely different subnet, something
similar to (for
> example) 42.127.129.X to further obfuscate the internal
network from
> outside. This, and many other examples, produces a
class-A subnet
> mask (some produce a class-B) when entered in WinXP's
TCP/IP dialog,
> although the actual mask we use with it is class-C.
*nod*
> Is this a no-no? Will it break our server's IPTables
when
> communicating with it? Am I in for a lot of trouble?
The addresses
> don't seem to cause any problems, but I don't want this
to jump up
> and bite us in the bottom sometime down the road.
Well, the 42.x.y.z is not too bad as far as conflicting with
someone
else seeing as how IANA has it "Reserved". Take a
look at the "Internet
Protocol v4 Address Space" page
(ht
tp://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space) on
IANA's web site
for more information.
Grant. . . .
|
