New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Should one avoid IPv4 addresses in the 192.0.0.0/8 range?
The main concern is that some less-then-savvy folks out there might have their LANs configured with addresses 192.168.x.x but incorrect netmask 255.0.0.0, resulting in unreachability of anything in 192.0.0.0/8.
Is this something to worry about?
192?
- Would you use a 192.0.0.0/8 address for, e.g., an HTTP server?55 votes
- Yes70.91%
- No25.45%
- Yes, but only as CloudFlare backend3.64%
Comments
This is the dumbest of all your question threads so far.
If they have a misconfigured network, that's their own fault.
Yet another pointless thread by OP.
Well, all records must be broken eventually.
I'm confused to why all the comments say that having a 192.0.0.0/8 address is fine, but 40% say it's not fine for a web server?
No, but you should stab your provider in the head if they try and palm you off with a third-rate 172.x.y.z address outside the range reserved by rfc1918
What if their netmask is 0.0.0.0 instead of 255.0.0.0? Do we all have to accommodate them?
Ironically @singsing isn't a fan of IPv6 which would be a nice workaround to any broken IPv4 subnet mask...
I think they will realize the problem is at their end pretty soon if their netmask is 0.0.0.0. The 192/8 problem is a bit more insidious because most of the Internet seems to work fine when you are configured that way.
The way I see it is, with all the hosting services out there, it wouldn't really cost me extra to have a non-192 address ...
Well, stabbing in the head is probably a little extreme, but I admit the addresses you mention are probably significantly worse than 192 addresses.
My home network and my mobile network can reach any address outside 192.168.X.X just fine. So I am not avoiding such providers.
⇩ Worse than this
Interestingly enough I did have a client before that was unable to use their vps at work because their work assumed everything in 172.x.x.x was internal and their vps had an IP in our 172.110.x.x range.