[plug] IP address

[John Summerfield]

> Jon,
> 
> I think it's good practice to use the 192.168.0.0/24 range when implementing
> a network with only a small number of machines, though you're by no means
> limited by it. Bear in mind, though, that this range is actually a B-class
> with a C-class subnet mask, so even those rules are a little askew.

192.* network addresses are officially designated class C networks. The 
default netmask for those adresses reflects that.

> 
> It seems to be becoming common practice when implementing an RFC1918 LAN/WAN
> to just use a 10.* network and place whatever subnet mask seems appropriate

When I was at BankWest, it used 10.* addresses. I can imagine that a 
single class C network may be inadequate. It seems to me to use class A, B 
or C according to your network size is sensible; no point in specifying 
netmasks if they're not essential.

In the case of BankWest, i'd be inclined to use several class C or B 
networks, divided up over administrative centres with default netmasks. It 
seem to me this is marginally simpler than using a class A network with 
netmasks do subnet it.





-- 
Cheers
John Summerfield
http://os2.ami.com.au/os2/ for OS/2 support.
Configuration, networking, combined IBM ftpsites index.