Re: NAT addresses - RFC or tradition?

["Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães" <leolistas@solutti.com.br>]

Paul Blondé escreveu:
> I've noticed that a lot of people use the 192.168.X.X subnet for internal
> networks, is this (and the less-used 10-series) a requirement of some RFC,
> or a recommendation that has become tradition?
>
> We are using a completely different subnet, something similar to (for
> example) 42.127.129.X to further obfuscate the internal network from
> outside. This, and many other examples, produces a class-A subnet mask (some
> produce a class-B) when entered in WinXP's TCP/IP dialog, although the
> actual mask we use with it is class-C.
>
> Is this a no-no? Will it break our server's IPTables when communicating with
> it? Am I in for a lot of trouble? The addresses don't seem to cause any
> problems, but I don't want this to jump up and bite us in the bottom
> sometime down the road.
>   

    Yes, those 'reserved' IP addresses are declared by RFC 1918. Please 
check:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network

    Your network will work with no problems, except if you had to access 
some far-far-far away network which uses your local addresses, which 
should never be used as local ones.

   

-- 


	Atenciosamente / Sincerily,
	Leonardo Rodrigues
	Solutti Tecnologia
	http://www.solutti.com.br

	Minha armadilha de SPAM, NÃO mandem email
	gertrudes@solutti.com.br
	My SPAMTRAP, do not email it