Re:Millions of the Pentagon’s dormant IP addresses sprang to...
by simondotau on Saturday April 24, 2021 @08:26PM
(#26929348)
I personally use a range towards the end of the 172.16/12 reservation for my home network for exactly this reason. Ever since I made the change five years ago I’ve never suffered any conflicts when running a VPN in or out.
Re:Millions of the Pentagon’s dormant IP addresses sprang to...
by bombcar on Saturday April 24, 2021 @08:54PM
(#26929476)
Virtually nobody realizes 172.17-172.31 are available.
And many are surprised to find that there are 172.* that are routable.
Re:Millions of the Pentagon’s dormant IP addresses sprang to...
by jamiek88 on Saturday April 24, 2021 @06:35PM
(#26928781)
I know the old Apple extreme and time machine routers used to default to 10 rather than 192 ever since then I’ve kept my internal routing within that block.
It just looks nicer to me which shows the power of Apple and how easily I am influenced.
Re:Millions of the Pentagon’s dormant IP addresses sprang to...
by mrweasel on Sunday April 25, 2021 @02:51AM
(#26930823)
I like the 172.12/16 to company network, especially small companies with limited support resources. Getting employees on VPN is much simpler as virtually no home routers use that range.
Re:Millions of the Pentagon’s dormant IP addresses sprang to...
by bombcar on Saturday April 24, 2021 @08:53PM
(#26929467)
A trick is to use something in the 10 range but not /8 - 10.185.203/24 will work on a 10/8 network (assuming no actual host overlap) as it’s more specific and will route first.
Still gives you fun issues though.
In my work we use 10.0.0.0/8 but of course some people use the same at home even though 192.168/16 is way more common. In general I find 172.16/12 the least common in the field.