Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets
Marc Haber <[email protected]> Fri, 31 Jul 2026 15:06:32 +0200
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.misc |
|---|---|
| Organization | private site, see http://www.zugschlus.de/ for details |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
"Carlos E. R." <[email protected]> wrote: >On 2026-07-30 13:59, Robert Heller wrote: >> The 192.168.*.0 sub-nets are for class Class C Private >> sub-nets. > >LOL. ChatGPT just said to me: > >The IPv4 address ranges reserved for private local networks (defined in RFC 1918) are: > >| Private range | CIDR notation | Number of addresses | Common use | >| --------------------------------- | ---------------- | ------------------: | ----------------------------------------------- | >| **10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255** | `10.0.0.0/8` | 16,777,216 | Large enterprise networks, cloud infrastructure | >| **172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255** | `172.16.0.0/12` | 1,048,576 | Medium to large private networks | >| **192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255** | `192.168.0.0/16` | 65,536 | Home routers and small office networks | > >It gives no link for this information, except citing RFC 1918 That is not a contradiction. There is no obligation to waste IP addresses, you can always choose a longer prefix. And it is actually a smart idea to do so. The fact that the net is full of incorrect, obsolete, and misleading terminology is a reason for "AI" to ingest that and of course to regurgitate it. Greetings Marc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402