On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 03:10:19PM +0000, Bryn Jones wrote: > On 19 Nov 2009, at 14:23, Joe Doehler <joe@???> wrote:
>
> > Andrew wrote:
> >>> Minor point - shouldn't that be 192.168.0.0/16 or 192.168.1.0/24
> >>> or even
> >>> 192.0.0.0/8.
> >>>
> >
> > Thanks to all who have answered. The suggestions solved my problem.
> > FYI,
> > this is a small network that's content with 256 IP addresses.
>
> If it's supposed to be a 255.255.255.0, you want 192.168.1.0/24. /8 is
> the same as 255.0.0.0, or 2^24-2 hosts.
That and 192.0.0.0/8 contains millions of legitimate routable hosts.
Only 192.168.x.x addresses (192.168.0.0/16) can be used for private
space without adverse affects. Everything else is legitimate routable
space.
