Maarten Wiltink wrote: > "Dave Hart" <daveh...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:03463add-146a-457d-9869-9caddf6f8...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> On Feb 17, 9:01 am, "Maarten Wiltink" <maar...@kittensandcats.net> >> wrote: > >>> My home network is on 192.168.27/24. I took the number from my >>> street address. My brother (independently!) picked 53 for his >>> network, by the same mechanism[0]. We have an OpenVPN tunnel >>> between those networks. We have no routing problems. >>> >>> [0] And when they renumbered his house, he renumbered his >>> network. Okay, I wouldn't have done that. >> I've taken the same approach a couple of times at different >> addresses with 192.168.address.0/24. I also have a VPN going with >> my brother. Sadly, his employer requires security software that >> requires he use 192.168.1.0/24 for his home network to be able to >> VPN in to work. As a workaround, I've sometimes subnetted a hotel >> 192.168.1.0/24 hotel address, claiming 192.168.1.2 and using netmask >> 192.168.1.252, so that when I VPN all but the first few addresses of >> my brother's network are visible. > > Scary. You _are_ me. (-: > > (Actually, it was my employer, not his, that had a spurious > 192.168.0/24 requirement somewhere, so I guess that introduces > a cross in the connection somewhere.) >
This is why I avoid the 192.168.*.* addresses everywhere. Everyone wants to use them. Only my DMZ uses them. Danny > Groetjes, > Maarten Wiltink _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
