[GRLUG] Host numbering on an IPv4 network

[Roger Roelofs]

Michael,

Did you get an answer to this?

Basically two addresses from each subnet are reserved.  the network
address (host bits are 0) and the broadcast address (the host bits are
1).  See http://tldp.org/HOWTO/archived/IP-Subnetworking/IP-Subnetworking-3.html
for a detailed explanatio. and
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/archived/IP-Subnetworking/IP-Subnetworking-6.html

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol at gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's say I have a network of 192.168.0.0/16
>
> I'm very accustomed to seeing the first machine on a network being
> numbered with the *second* address on the network. I've been told that
> it's customary for the first IP address on the network to be reserved
> to identify the network, and that all hosts should have subsequent
> IPs.
>
> So the first machine (and router) on my 192.168.0.1, because
> 192.168.0.0 is reserved for identifying my network. Is that correct
> and good form? Is it poor form to use 192.168.0.0 as the IP of the
> router?
>
> I ask because my actual scenario is closer to 192.168.77.128/28. A /28
> netmask leaves me with 16 valid IPs for that subnet.
>
> (I'm working within a /24, and I divided it into /28s which I can
> segregate by role. This /28 is for wifi. I've got another for the
> wired LAN, I'll probably have another in the future for VMS which need
> to have their own segregation considerations, and I might use another
> in the future for a specific small VPN case. I don't want to migrate
> elsewhere under 192.168.0.0/16, or over to 10.0.0.0/8, or over to
> 172.16/12, for reasons I don't want to discuss. :) )
>
> --
> :wq
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> _______________________________________________
> grlug mailing list
> grlug at grlug.org
> http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
>



-- 
Roger

Roger Roelofs
Know what you value.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.