Re: 172.16.x.x routable?
From: Volker Birk (bumens_at_dingens.org)
Date: 10/15/05
- Next message: Volker Birk: "Re: March 29, 2006 total eclipse - IT admin's WORST NIGHTMARE"
- Previous message: Volker Birk: "Re: Is it possible to "route" from VPN to VLAN"
- In reply to: null: "172.16.x.x routable?"
- Next in thread: null: "Re: 172.16.x.x routable?"
- Reply: null: "Re: 172.16.x.x routable?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 15 Oct 2005 13:25:03 +0200
null <null@null.null> wrote:
> I was under the impression that 172.16.x.x-172.31.x.x addresses were
> used for private ip addresses like the 192.168.x.x addresses are.
Yes, see RFC 3330. To be exactly: 172.16.0.0/12 is set aside for use in
private networks.
> I
> also thought that meant they're not routable.
Oh, they're routable. One should not route them to the Internet, though.
> The other day while I was
> helping someone they pinged me and the return address on their packets
> was 172.16.x.x. They were several hundred miles away so their packets
> had to get routed through a number of hops before it got to me. Can
> someone explain why this worked? Thanks.
Please post a traceroute.
Yours,
VB.
--
"Ich bin ein freier Mensch und werde jetzt von meinen Freiheitsrechten
Gebrauch machen - und zwar ausgiebig - natürlich nur in dem Rahmen, den
Otto Schily mir noch zur Verfügung stellt."
Wolfgang Clement am 10.10.05 als Noch-Superminister
- Next message: Volker Birk: "Re: March 29, 2006 total eclipse - IT admin's WORST NIGHTMARE"
- Previous message: Volker Birk: "Re: Is it possible to "route" from VPN to VLAN"
- In reply to: null: "172.16.x.x routable?"
- Next in thread: null: "Re: 172.16.x.x routable?"
- Reply: null: "Re: 172.16.x.x routable?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|