Talk:Private network

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 169.254/16 is a single Class B subnet

Perhaps this range is an exception, but generally all subnets from 128/8 through 191/8 are Class B. I'm changing the article accordingly. If I'm wrong, please respond here and change it back. Scorpiuss 13:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this page is full of false information

trying to rewrite, but maybe it should just be deleted...

Not sure what the RFC is, or even what it's called, but it would be nice to have a similar page for 127.0.0.0/???

I'm thinking that the entire 127.x.x.x subnet is reserved, but I'm not sure.

Thanks for this.......... page, though! I'm always forgetting that 172 is a 12 bit!

rfc3330 - Special-Use IPv4 Addresses - contains the following description of the block 127.0.0.0/8.

'127.0.0.0/8 - This block is assigned for use as the Internet host

  loopback address.  A datagram sent by a higher level protocol to an
  address anywhere within this block should loop back inside the host.
  This is ordinarily implemented using only 127.0.0.1/32 for loopback,
  but no addresses within this block should ever appear on any network
  anywhere [RFC1700, page 5].'

[edit] is 136.*.*.* Private ???

is 136.*.*.* Private ???

Nope.

[edit] IPv6

I know that IPv6 has link-local and site-local addresses, whatever those are, but I'm not sure if IPv6 has a parallel to these addresses other than IPv4-mapped ones... Any ideas? --Scott P

[edit] Might be nice to have article for "Public IP Address"

Might be nice to have article for "Public IP Address" just to clarify the terms "Private IP Address" and "Public IP Address". It can also contrast the diffeerences and link to descriptions of puiblic IP Address assignment and recording...

Gracias, www.madkatz.com solar powered home and electric vehicle (RAV4-EV)

[edit] How is 192.168/16 not a class B?

[edit] 169.254 is both listed in the Private chart and given its own category. It should be one or the other, not both.

I'm pretty sure the line 20-bit block 172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255 should really be 12-bit block 172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255

I'm new here - am I supposed to just go change it? What if I'm wrong? Thanks!


APIPA (Automatic Private IP Addressing) takes over when a windows machine can't find a DHCP server willing to loan it an address. APIPA assigns an address in the 169.254.0.1 - 169.254.255.254 range. They may be able to see IP resources on their immediate network, but accessing or being seen from outside is not a possibility...

Small correction: The address range used for Zeroconf is 169.254.1.0 till 169.254.254.255, both the first and last 256 addresses must not be used. See RFC 3927 section 2.1. Sigkill 21:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 239.255.255/24

is multicast 239.255.255/24 (or wider) also private? If someone knows for sure, please list ALL the ranges which are not routed globally

[edit] Private Networks and IPv6

Revragnarok, are you adamantly opposed to any mention of the fact that ipv6 will render private networks unnecessary? I'd be willing to write a more detailed article but I don't want to waste my time if you're going to just delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzzo (talk • contribs)

Yes. As far as anything I have ever read about IPv6, this is a false statement. If you have a reference, go for it; I will gladly admit I was wrong. Private networks are good for other reasons, mainly as security - even when my network is upgraded to IPv6, I still want my router to drop any packets that weren't meant to hit the internet. That's one of the benefits of private networks. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 21:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that you are wrong, but I do know that the "IP address" article section on IPv6 Private Networks directly contradicts what is written in this article. It may be shallow, but since that article looks more well maintained than this one I'm inclined to believe it. Either way, the two should be made congruous. 199.91.34.33 10:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

IPV6 does allow IPs to be non-routed for security, but there are no "special" IPs that everyone will use for "private networks." IPV6 will provide enough IPs for everyone to have plenty, so if someone wants a private network, they will just configure their routers to not route some of their public IPs. The details of this are still being worked out, but the process is far enough along to confidently say that there will be no "private network" IPs in IPV6. There was going to be this NAT-like thing called "site local" addresses but it has been removed from the IPV6 spec; see RFC 3879 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3879 How about if I work up a better article with references? Ozzzo 03:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a full article is needed, but pretty much 2-3 lines with what you just wrote is fine. In fact, I'll just do it right now, you tweak[1]. It's mostly your words anyway. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 15:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Private DNS names ?

When using private IP addresses on a private network, the need for private domain names also arises. Is there an article about that ? If yes, it should be linked. If not, it should be wrritten ;-) The only info I could find about this is RFC 2606. Microsoft Windows seems to use the name mshome.net for this purpose. --Xerces8 07:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)