Paul Blondé escreveu:
I've noticed that a lot of people use the 192.168.X.X subnet for internal
networks, is this (and the less-used 10-series) a requirement of some RFC,
or a recommendation that has become tradition?
We are using a completely different subnet, something similar to (for
example) 42.127.129.X to further obfuscate the internal network from
outside. This, and many other examples, produces a class-A subnet mask (some
produce a class-B) when entered in WinXP's TCP/IP dialog, although the
actual mask we use with it is class-C.
Is this a no-no? Will it break our server's IPTables when communicating with
it? Am I in for a lot of trouble? The addresses don't seem to cause any
problems, but I don't want this to jump up and bite us in the bottom
sometime down the road.
Yes, those 'reserved' IP addresses are declared by RFC 1918. Please
check:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network
Your network will work with no problems, except if you had to access
some far-far-far away network which uses your local addresses, which
should never be used as local ones.
--
Atenciosamente / Sincerily,
Leonardo Rodrigues
Solutti Tecnologia
http://www.solutti.com.br
Minha armadilha de SPAM, NÃO mandem email
gertrudes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
My SPAMTRAP, do not email it
