That is why you avoid the 192.168 totally since MOST soho stuff uses a ip in there. As well another great reason why one should require the client to use a bb router on their side that either pick it's ip through dhcp or pppoe.
/ Eje Sunday, June 22, 2003, 7:21:30 PM, you wrote: p> I agree with this change but im in the same boat I use 0.x for my p> smartbridges but I make sure I don't let clients use this for there networks p> I tell them to use 1.x or something similar. I know IP conflicts with the p> sb's have caused problems before I believe. Another reason I think vlan p> support should be implemented on the new ap's. p> Chris p> _____ p> From: Ray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] p> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 4:34 PM p> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p> I think that you should not be using 192.168.0.x. Pick something else like p> 10.5.20.x p> Ray p> ----- Original Message ----- p> From: TopsailNet <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> p> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> p> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 12:47 PM p> Subject: RE: [smartBridges] LAN side IP Addresses p> The DHCP is providing public addresses, not 192.168.0.x addresses - it's p> working well but has thrown me a curve by giving one of my radios a public p> address - but that was before I started using simpleDeploy to insure that p> the radio doesn't ask for an address when it's reset. p> So, you agree that allowing customers to use 192.168.0.x addresses is not a p> good idea? p> Harvey p> -----Original Message----- p> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark P. Sullivan p> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 3:15 PM p> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p> Subject: RE: [smartBridges] LAN side IP Addresses p> If I were you, I wouldn't be running DHCP on the 192.168.0.x subnet. That p> is a typical "default" subnet..and I don't do ANYTHING by default. p> You don't want your client on the same subnet...that is for sure. p> Sully p> -----Original Message----- p> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] p> On Behalf Of TopsailNet p> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 11:42 AM p> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p> Subject: [smartBridges] LAN side IP Addresses p> I have all my sB wireless devices set up with 192.168.0.x addresses. All p> clients connected to the wireless network either have static public p> addresses assigned or use DHCP to obtain a public address. p> I have instructed my customers that use a DSL/Cable router to connect a p> network, not to use 192.168.0.x on the LAN side of their router. p> Now I have a customer that insists he must use 192.168.0.x on his LAN (I p> won't go into his reasoning) p> If I allow him to use this sub-net on his LAN, my concern is that some p> fat-fingered IT person will inadvertently (or intentionally) turn off NAT on p> his DSL/Cable router and flood my wireless network with a bunch of duplicate p> 192.168.0.x addresses that may bring down my wireless network. p> Is this a valid concern on my part? Any voice of experience will be p> appreciated. p> --- p> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. p> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com p> <http://www.grisoft.com> ). p> Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 6/18/2003 Best regards, Eje Gustafsson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- The Family Entertainment Network http://www.fament.com Phone : 620-231-7777 Fax : 620-231-4066 eBay UserID : macahan - Your Full Time Professionals - --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) Archives: http://198.63.203.6
