[32118] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 10.x.x.x networks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Cappuccio)
Fri Nov 10 18:10:33 2000
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:08:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Chris Cappuccio <chris@dqc.org>
To: Michael Long <mlong@sac.verio.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.02.10011101451050.1886-100000@destroyer.sac.verio.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSO.4.21.0011101507280.7038-100000@dqc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
No. IPs are just numbers. Who cares what segment you use. The only
reason you wouldn't want to use the first or last part of a subnet is if you
have machines running very, very old software (like a Cisco router that won't
do ip subnet-zero)
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Michael Long wrote:
|
|
| I've been having a friendly arguement with some friends at work about
| wheather it's right or wrong to use 10.255.255.0/24 for a network.
| Technically it should work, but during our conversations we keep coming
| back to best practiced IP schemes. I'm wondering what others think about
| this. Is using 10.255.255.0/24 and possibly the reverse 10.0.0.0/24 bad
| practice?
|
| Mike
|
|
|
|
|
---
Rev. Chris Cappuccio -=- http://www.dqc.org/~chris/
"If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you"
- Ralph Nader
