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
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space) on IANA's web site
for more information.
Grant. . . .
|