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=7i=49118t=49083 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: private addressing [7:49083]
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? 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. 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=7i=49181t=49083 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: private addressing [7:49083]
At 9:08 PM + 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=7i=49194t=49083 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: private addressing [7:49083]
you can enter all kinds of things into the RIP process and not get errors. It doesn't mean it will work the way you want it to. Did you know, for example, that about the only way to get CIDR routes INTO a Cisco RIPv2 router is to redistribute them? cebuano wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... 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? 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. 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=7i=49207t=49083 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: private addressing [7:49083]
It's probably not valid to frame the question as one that stands to confirm or deny the validity of a denifition such as that applied to the notion of a class C address based upon the behavior exhibited by a given implementation of old-style tcp/ip. Unlike many parts of life, in this case the definition supercedes the implementation. Conversely, in the context of scrutinizing cisco's rip implementation, your questions are quite timely relevant. I'd love to know the answers myself. It's obvious that cisco has a reason to stand behind invest effort into their igrp/eigrp implementation. Based upon both Fred Baker's pivotal role in crafting RFC 1812 and his professional affiliations, their effort in maintaining a competitive OSPF implementation comes as no surprise (I fully admit that those observations may not have had any causal affect or effect on actual events, but i wonder if the reality of their unrobust rip implementation might have encouraged them to more fervently refine enhance their OSPF implementation). But I've always wondered why they have been several steps behind other competitors as far as their RIP implementation is concerned, in terms of both controlling and diagnosing its behavior. The simple answer is one indirectly implied in threads from many months back, that their proprietary hybrid (whatever that means outside the context of gatherings of marketing executives) protocol effort left them with little motivation to direct a sufficient quantity of their programming wherewithal might towards a truly robust rip implementation Is there more to it? The few high level Cisco engineers I've interacted with seemed well-versed in all commonly-adopted routing protocols EXCEPT RIP, indicating somewhat of a pattern corporate-wide. Nota Bene: my reference point is Wellfleet's RIP implementation, which mattered a lot more when both wellfleet rip were more prominent participants in the capital I internet and the enterprise organizations which fed off of it. - Original Message - From: cebuano To: Sent: 18 July 2002 5:08 pm Subject: RE: private addressing [7:49083] 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? 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. 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=7i=49213t=49083 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 ? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49083t=49083 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: private addressing [7:49083]
Public though it apparently hasn't been doled out: dmadlan horton:/aces/home/dmadlan $ whois 172.35.0.0 No match for 172.35.0.0. Dave birdy wrote: 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 ? -- David Madland CCIE# 2016 Sr. Network Engineer Qwest Communications Inc. 612-664-3367 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49084t=49083 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: private addressing [7:49083]
Actually, it's 172.16.0.0 to 172.31.255.255. So the answer is yes, 172.35.0.0 is from the public block. Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of birdy Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 8:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 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 ? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49088t=49083 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
