<font size="2"><font face="times new roman,serif">I don't think it has to do with "customs" it has to do with the RFC's Defining IP usage. </font></font><div><font size="2"><font face="times new roman,serif">I don't even think most OS will allow you to configure it a .0 host in most case. </font></font></div>
<div><font size="2"><font face="times new roman,serif"><br></font></font></div><div><font size="2"><font face="times new roman,serif">Out of curiosity why would you want to ?<br></font></font><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Michael Mol <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mikemol@gmail.com">mikemol@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Let's say I have a network of <a href="http://192.168.0.0/16" target="_blank"><font color="red"><b>MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious:</b></font> 192.168.0.0/16</a><br>
<br>
I'm very accustomed to seeing the first machine on a network being<br>
numbered with the *second* address on the network. I've been told that<br>
it's customary for the first IP address on the network to be reserved<br>
to identify the network, and that all hosts should have subsequent<br>
IPs.<br>
<br>
So the first machine (and router) on my 192.168.0.1, because<br>
192.168.0.0 is reserved for identifying my network. Is that correct<br>
and good form? Is it poor form to use 192.168.0.0 as the IP of the<br>
router?<br>
<br>
I ask because my actual scenario is closer to <a href="http://192.168.77.128/28" target="_blank"><font color="red"><b>MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious:</b></font> 192.168.77.128/28</a>. A /28<br>
netmask leaves me with 16 valid IPs for that subnet.<br>
<br>
(I'm working within a /24, and I divided it into /28s which I can<br>
segregate by role. This /28 is for wifi. I've got another for the<br>
wired LAN, I'll probably have another in the future for VMS which need<br>
to have their own segregation considerations, and I might use another<br>
in the future for a specific small VPN case. I don't want to migrate<br>
elsewhere under <a href="http://192.168.0.0/16" target="_blank"><font color="red"><b>MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious:</b></font> 192.168.0.0/16</a>, or over to <a href="http://10.0.0.0/8" target="_blank"><font color="red"><b>MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious:</b></font> 10.0.0.0/8</a>, or over to<br>
172.16/12, for reasons I don't want to discuss. :) )<br>
<br>
--<br>
:wq<br>
<br>
--<br>
This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>
believed to be clean.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
grlug mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:grlug@grlug.org">grlug@grlug.org</a><br>
<a href="http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug" target="_blank">http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div><font face="times new roman,serif" color="#006600">Joseph Workman</font></div><div><span style="font-family:'times new roman', serif;color:rgb(0, 102, 0)">C.616.734.1411</span></div>
<br>
</div>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.