Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets

On 31/07/2026 12:38, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2026-07-30 18:43, Marc Haber wrote:
>> "Carlos E. R." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 2026-07-30 13:42, Marc Haber wrote:
>>>> "Carlos E. R." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
>>>>>           inet 192.168.2.9  netmask 255.255.0.0  broadcast 
>>>>> 192.168.255.255
>>>>
>>>> Using the entire 192.168.0.0/16 range for a single home network is a
>>>> sure sign of a person not knowing too much about networking or an
>>>> incompetent ISP.
>>>
>>> The ISP configures the router so that it is mandatory to use
>>> 192.168.1.*, and they take a good chunk of it for their own usage. I
>>> have no recourse but using this non standard network. I use 192.168.2
>>> for dhcp assignments.
>>
>> With a /16 Netmask, covering the entire 192.168 RFC 1918 range, as if
>> we have plenty of IPv4 addresses?
>>
>> Please, let me see that ISPs customer documentation. They do have it
>> online, don't they? I'm familiar with that industry for nearly 30
>> years and have never seen a setup like that. It sounds so brain-dead
>> that my first idea was that you haven't understood.
> 
> There is no documentation. They keep it secret. What is known is by 
> reverse engineering.
> 
Indeed. One of the reasons I hate using mobile phones as routers. 
Arbitrary and strange IP addresses behind massive firewalls I don't 
control...

-- 
Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle 
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump 
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the 
battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is 
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.