F5F Stay Refreshed Power Users Networks A fresh approach to IPv4 implementation

A fresh approach to IPv4 implementation

A fresh approach to IPv4 implementation

Pages (2): 1 2 Next
V
Valzarok
Junior Member
38
04-14-2016, 06:43 PM
#1
Public IP ranges are available in sets with a default mask of 255.255.255.0. Organizations requiring more can purchase additional blocks. Ranges A through D each have specific boundaries: A covers 1.0.0.0 to 9.255.255.255, B spans 10.0.0.0 to 10.255.255.255, C extends from 11.0.0.0 to 126.255.255.255, and D includes 127.0.0.0 to 127.0.0.255. Public addresses are reserved for internal use only with a default mask of 255.0.0.0. This configuration eliminates 310 million addresses while staying within the limit of 2^32 addresses. It also resolves the issue of 16 million loopback entries and removes private ranges like 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.255.255, opting instead for 10.0.0.0 to 10.255.255.255.
V
Valzarok
04-14-2016, 06:43 PM #1

Public IP ranges are available in sets with a default mask of 255.255.255.0. Organizations requiring more can purchase additional blocks. Ranges A through D each have specific boundaries: A covers 1.0.0.0 to 9.255.255.255, B spans 10.0.0.0 to 10.255.255.255, C extends from 11.0.0.0 to 126.255.255.255, and D includes 127.0.0.0 to 127.0.0.255. Public addresses are reserved for internal use only with a default mask of 255.0.0.0. This configuration eliminates 310 million addresses while staying within the limit of 2^32 addresses. It also resolves the issue of 16 million loopback entries and removes private ranges like 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.255.255, opting instead for 10.0.0.0 to 10.255.255.255.

F
farhizon
Member
51
04-14-2016, 10:27 PM
#2
Engaging with outdated technologies and damaging existing systems is less advantageous compared to planning a shift toward IPv6. Some organizations currently hold vast /8 address blocks; releasing them would be more beneficial than attempting to repurpose address space in such a way.
F
farhizon
04-14-2016, 10:27 PM #2

Engaging with outdated technologies and damaging existing systems is less advantageous compared to planning a shift toward IPv6. Some organizations currently hold vast /8 address blocks; releasing them would be more beneficial than attempting to repurpose address space in such a way.

S
SychoGuss
Member
80
04-15-2016, 12:48 AM
#3
Yeah, good luck updating millions of legacy devices. If we can do that change, then we can also change to IPv6 and solve the issue for good. There are actually three private ranges 10.0.0.0/8 172.16.0.0/12 192.168.0.0/16
S
SychoGuss
04-15-2016, 12:48 AM #3

Yeah, good luck updating millions of legacy devices. If we can do that change, then we can also change to IPv6 and solve the issue for good. There are actually three private ranges 10.0.0.0/8 172.16.0.0/12 192.168.0.0/16

S
SKY3R
Member
138
04-16-2016, 12:41 AM
#4
172.16.0.0/12 is redundant since our setup already uses 10.0.0.0/8, which covers 16 million addresses—potentially too broad.
S
SKY3R
04-16-2016, 12:41 AM #4

172.16.0.0/12 is redundant since our setup already uses 10.0.0.0/8, which covers 16 million addresses—potentially too broad.

L
LuigiXGames
Senior Member
426
04-17-2016, 09:10 PM
#5
Just checking if looking back would help me improve my approach.
L
LuigiXGames
04-17-2016, 09:10 PM #5

Just checking if looking back would help me improve my approach.

C
ChickenPhoYou
Posting Freak
850
04-17-2016, 09:24 PM
#6
I don't understand why, but that's the situation. You might remove millions of IP addresses from AT&T, Apple, Ford, Comcast, and the DoD—each holding 16 million public IPs—and even more from other sources. Just adjust which addresses are public or private and let other companies access them.
C
ChickenPhoYou
04-17-2016, 09:24 PM #6

I don't understand why, but that's the situation. You might remove millions of IP addresses from AT&T, Apple, Ford, Comcast, and the DoD—each holding 16 million public IPs—and even more from other sources. Just adjust which addresses are public or private and let other companies access them.

K
Krydino
Member
54
04-18-2016, 06:21 AM
#7
The selection of each private address range was guided by IANA's allocation strategy: three distinct blocks were reserved for private networks. The first range, 10.0.0.0 to 10.255.255.255, serves as a 10/8 prefix; the second, 172.16.0.0 to 172.31.255.255, acts as a 172.16/12 prefix; and the third, 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.255.255, functions as a 192.168/16 prefix. These divisions help organize and manage private IP addresses efficiently.
K
Krydino
04-18-2016, 06:21 AM #7

The selection of each private address range was guided by IANA's allocation strategy: three distinct blocks were reserved for private networks. The first range, 10.0.0.0 to 10.255.255.255, serves as a 10/8 prefix; the second, 172.16.0.0 to 172.31.255.255, acts as a 172.16/12 prefix; and the third, 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.255.255, functions as a 192.168/16 prefix. These divisions help organize and manage private IP addresses efficiently.

T
Torch15
Member
65
04-18-2016, 11:17 AM
#8
Aim to enhance the world by letting go of those rigid network rules that force strict subnetting. Think: "Hey, use 255.255.0.0... it’s your range, not mine. It’s private. Your switch should handle it." When challenged, clarify your perspective on small businesses and VLAN usage.
T
Torch15
04-18-2016, 11:17 AM #8

Aim to enhance the world by letting go of those rigid network rules that force strict subnetting. Think: "Hey, use 255.255.0.0... it’s your range, not mine. It’s private. Your switch should handle it." When challenged, clarify your perspective on small businesses and VLAN usage.

H
HylianEevee
Member
50
04-18-2016, 01:05 PM
#9
Keep in mind, those specific addresses aren't allowed in the larger subnets, "since they're not permitted."
H
HylianEevee
04-18-2016, 01:05 PM #9

Keep in mind, those specific addresses aren't allowed in the larger subnets, "since they're not permitted."

R
rnick2000
Junior Member
21
04-18-2016, 02:46 PM
#10
Someone likely said you can't use those specific IP addresses in that network range, probably because of the subnet mask details.
R
rnick2000
04-18-2016, 02:46 PM #10

Someone likely said you can't use those specific IP addresses in that network range, probably because of the subnet mask details.

Pages (2): 1 2 Next