At 9:08 PM +0000 7/18/02, cebuano wrote: >Howard, >Since 192.168/16 is supposedly Class C, can you tell me why if I >configure RIPv1 it allows me to configure "network 192.168.0.0" instead >of giving me an error?
The traditional class C space began with 192/8, of which 192.168/16 is a part. I'm puzzled by your comment, since I generally use 192.168.0.0/24 for /30 serial links when I write scenarios, and never have any problem. There's no formal relationship between RIPv1 and RFC1918 addressing; RIPv1 long preceded private addressing. According to the IETF, RIPv1 is in "Historic" status, or considered obsolete. >I've tested it and of course it does not generate >or accept any updates until you change it something like 192.168.10.0. I know this runs in some of the Gett scenarios. From S0010: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ! ! Establishes initial RIP-only routing on R1. ! hostname r1 ! interface Loopback0 ip address 192.168.255.1 255.255.255.252 ! interface Loopback1 ip address 172.16.0.1 255.255.0.0 ! interface Ethernet0/0 description to Cat 5K 3/1 ip address 192.168.4.1 255.255.255.0 half-duplex ! interface Serial1/0 no ip address encapsulation frame-relay no frame-relay inverse-arp frame-relay lmi-type ansi ! interface Serial1/0.2 point-to-point description FR hub to R2; rev should be 211 ip address 192.0.2.1 255.255.255.252 frame-relay interface-dlci 112 ! interface Serial1/0.3 point-to-point description FR hub to R3; rev should be 311 ip address 192.0.2.5 255.255.255.252 frame-relay interface-dlci 113 ! interface Serial1/1 description serial to R3 bandwidth 56 ip address 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.252 ! router rip network 172.16.0.0 network 192.0.2.0 network 192.168.0.0 network 192.168.2.0 network 192.168.4.0 network 192.168.255.0 ip classless >Although it reports when you do a "sh ip prot" that it is routing for >networks 192.168.0.0 and 192.168.10.0. Is this a Cisco IOS "feature"? >I guess the same thing holds true with my question on the 172.16/12 >Private IP. Thanks in advance for your input. > >Elmer > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of >Howard C. Berkowitz >Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 9:11 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: private addressing [7:49083] > >>Can anyone tell me..... >> >>172.16.0.0 - 172.31.0.0 is used for class B private addressing.. >> >>That means that it can use 16 class B network address >> >>Now, let say I wan to use 172.35.0.0 block, so is this consider a >private >>address or a public address ? > >Public. > >The private blocks are > >10/8 >172.16/12 >192.168/16 > >Again, the sooner you stop thinking in classful terms, the easier >real-world addressing becomes. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49194&t=49083 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
