Private vs Public IP's

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by Tom, Mar 30, 2010.

  1. Tom

    Tom Guest

    I know that the private network ranges of 192.168.0.0, 10.0.0.0 and
    172.16.0.0..thru 172.31.0.0 are used for internal LAN's.

    However I'm seeing a lot of usage lately on internal networks using
    192.169.1.1 and 192.169.1.4, and sometimes 192.169.2.1...etc... I
    thought these were public IP's. Just curious because I've seen this
    quite often recently.

    Is there something I'm missing here with the 192.169.0.0 networks?
    Is this a new reservation that I'm not aware of?

    Thanks...
     
    Tom, Mar 30, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tom

    Rob Guest

    Tom <> wrote:
    > I know that the private network ranges of 192.168.0.0, 10.0.0.0 and
    > 172.16.0.0..thru 172.31.0.0 are used for internal LAN's.
    >
    > However I'm seeing a lot of usage lately on internal networks using
    > 192.169.1.1 and 192.169.1.4, and sometimes 192.169.2.1...etc... I
    > thought these were public IP's. Just curious because I've seen this
    > quite often recently.
    >
    > Is there something I'm missing here with the 192.169.0.0 networks?
    > Is this a new reservation that I'm not aware of?


    You probably mean 169.254.x.x ???
     
    Rob, Mar 30, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tom

    Mark Huizer Guest

    The wise Tom enlightened me with:
    > I know that the private network ranges of 192.168.0.0, 10.0.0.0 and
    > 172.16.0.0..thru 172.31.0.0 are used for internal LAN's.
    >
    > However I'm seeing a lot of usage lately on internal networks using
    > 192.169.1.1 and 192.169.1.4, and sometimes 192.169.2.1...etc... I
    > thought these were public IP's. Just curious because I've seen this
    > quite often recently.
    >
    > Is there something I'm missing here with the 192.169.0.0 networks?
    > Is this a new reservation that I'm not aware of?


    I guess these are people who don't really care about the public networks
    they can't reach anymore. It's still public IP space

    Mark
     
    Mark Huizer, Mar 30, 2010
    #3
  4. Rob <> writes:
    >Tom <> wrote:
    >> I know that the private network ranges of 192.168.0.0, 10.0.0.0 and
    >> 172.16.0.0..thru 172.31.0.0 are used for internal LAN's.
    >>
    >> However I'm seeing a lot of usage lately on internal networks using
    >> 192.169.1.1 and 192.169.1.4, and sometimes 192.169.2.1...etc... I
    >> thought these were public IP's. Just curious because I've seen this
    >> quite often recently.
    >>
    >> Is there something I'm missing here with the 192.169.0.0 networks?
    >> Is this a new reservation that I'm not aware of?


    >You probably mean 169.254.x.x ???



    I'm guessing as well that he really means 169.254.0.0/16.
    The reserved link-local IP address block.
     
    Doug McIntyre, Mar 30, 2010
    #4
  5. Tom

    Tom Guest

    On Mar 30, 2:09 pm, Doug McIntyre <> wrote:
    > Rob <> writes:
    > >Tom <> wrote:
    > >> I know that the private network ranges of 192.168.0.0, 10.0.0.0 and
    > >> 172.16.0.0..thru 172.31.0.0 are used for internal LAN's.

    >
    > >> However I'm seeing a lot of usage lately on internal networks using
    > >> 192.169.1.1 and 192.169.1.4, and sometimes 192.169.2.1...etc...  I
    > >> thought these were public IP's.  Just curious because I've seen this
    > >> quite often recently.

    >
    > >> Is there something I'm missing here with the 192.169.0.0 networks?
    > >> Is this a new reservation that I'm not aware of?

    > >You probably mean 169.254.x.x ???

    >
    > I'm guessing as well that he really means 169.254.0.0/16.
    > The reserved link-local IP address block.


    Nope...it's 192.169.2.1 and a few others with 192.169.x.x... I just
    wanted to make sure because I need to point this out in a meeting. I
    didn't think they should be used, but just wanted a little validation.

    Thanks much!
     
    Tom, Mar 30, 2010
    #5
  6. Tom <> writes:
    >Nope...it's 192.169.2.1 and a few others with 192.169.x.x... I just
    >wanted to make sure because I need to point this out in a meeting. I
    >didn't think they should be used, but just wanted a little validation.


    192.169.2.0/23 & 192.169.4.0/24 have been allocated to FMC Technologies, Inc.
    So its definately not private space.
     
    Doug McIntyre, Mar 30, 2010
    #6
  7. Tom

    bod43 Guest

    On 30 Mar, 18:23, Mark Huizer <>
    wrote:
    > The wise Tom enlightened me with:
    >
    > > I know that the private network ranges of 192.168.0.0, 10.0.0.0 and
    > > 172.16.0.0..thru 172.31.0.0 are used for internal LAN's.

    >
    > > However I'm seeing a lot of usage lately on internal networks using
    > > 192.169.1.1 and 192.169.1.4, and sometimes 192.169.2.1...etc...  I
    > > thought these were public IP's.  Just curious because I've seen this
    > > quite often recently.

    >
    > > Is there something I'm missing here with the 192.169.0.0 networks?
    > > Is this a new reservation that I'm not aware of?

    >
    > I guess these are people who don't really care about the public networks
    > they can't reach anymore. It's still public IP space
    >
    > Mark


    I would guess that it might have started with a typo, or perhaps
    someone followed on from 168.

    As discussed, it is in the Public address space.
     
    bod43, Apr 1, 2010
    #7
  8. Tom

    Tom Guest

    On Apr 1, 12:30 pm, bod43 <> wrote:
    > On 30 Mar, 18:23, Mark Huizer <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > The wise Tom enlightened me with:

    >
    > > > I know that the private network ranges of 192.168.0.0, 10.0.0.0 and
    > > > 172.16.0.0..thru 172.31.0.0 are used for internal LAN's.

    >
    > > > However I'm seeing a lot of usage lately on internal networks using
    > > > 192.169.1.1 and 192.169.1.4, and sometimes 192.169.2.1...etc...  I
    > > > thought these were public IP's.  Just curious because I've seen this
    > > > quite often recently.

    >
    > > > Is there something I'm missing here with the 192.169.0.0 networks?
    > > > Is this a new reservation that I'm not aware of?

    >
    > > I guess these are people who don't really care about the public networks
    > > they can't reach anymore. It's still public IP space

    >
    > > Mark

    >
    > I would guess that it might have started with a typo, or perhaps
    > someone followed on from 168.
    >
    > As discussed, it is in the Public address space.


    Thanks Everyone...turns out that the person who is doing this just
    does not accept it as a problem and I'm having to pound it into upper
    management to try to get them to see the importance because it's part
    of our product.

    Thanks for the comments:)
     
    Tom, Apr 2, 2010
    #8
  9. Tom

    Fingerlicked

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    3
    Use these docs in your meeting

    IPv4
    tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918

    IPv6
    tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193
     
    Fingerlicked, Apr 4, 2010
    #9
  10. Tom

    scott owens Guest

    On Apr 2, 11:40 am, Tom <> wrote:
    > On Apr 1, 12:30 pm, bod43 <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 30 Mar, 18:23, Mark Huizer <>
    > > wrote:

    >
    > > > The wise Tom enlightened me with:

    >
    > > > > I know that the private network ranges of 192.168.0.0, 10.0.0.0 and
    > > > > 172.16.0.0..thru 172.31.0.0 are used for internal LAN's.

    >
    > > > > However I'm seeing a lot of usage lately on internal networks using
    > > > > 192.169.1.1 and 192.169.1.4, and sometimes 192.169.2.1...etc...  I
    > > > > thought these were public IP's.  Just curious because I've seen this
    > > > > quite often recently.

    >
    > > > > Is there something I'm missing here with the 192.169.0.0 networks?
    > > > > Is this a new reservation that I'm not aware of?

    >
    > > > I guess these are people who don't really care about the public networks
    > > > they can't reach anymore. It's still public IP space

    >
    > > > Mark

    >
    > > I would guess that it might have started with a typo, or perhaps
    > > someone followed on from 168.

    >
    > > As discussed, it is in the Public address space.

    >
    > Thanks Everyone...turns out that the person who is doing this just
    > does not accept it as a problem and I'm having to pound it into upper
    > management to try to get them to see the importance because it's part
    > of our product.
    >
    > Thanks for the comments:)


    Funny true story -
    about 10 years ago I worked for an international telecommunications
    carrier that spun off a wireless division.
    The technical side folks picked as their address space that which was
    used by the University of North Carolina. Which of course was fine
    until we wanted to get to the Sun Microsystems public web repositories
    [ sunsite ..... ] and other similar sites Eventually they had to re-
    number and when I left the company (not in any way related) there were
    around 13,000 employees.
    I am not aware of a worse choice of addressing space
     
    scott owens, Apr 4, 2010
    #10
  11. Tom

    alexd Guest

    On 02/04/10 18:40, Tom wrote:

    > Thanks Everyone...turns out that the person who is doing this just
    > does not accept it as a problem and I'm having to pound it into upper
    > management to try to get them to see the importance because it's part
    > of our product.


    I wish you every success. You might like to point out to upper
    management that your competitors could highlight this 'feature' of your
    product in comparisons with their products.

    I have a customer with a router provided by a Large Multinational,
    configured with an IPsec tunnel for remote access into Large
    Multinational's systems [my customer writes software for them]. Large
    Multinational have a /22 and a few /24s carved out of two /8's, yet
    insist on using large swathes of both /8s internally. Every month or so
    I have to create another exception on my customer's ASA because they
    can't access yet another website, hosted by an innocent third party on
    an address they own in one of those /8s.

    --
    <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ()
    22:27:14 up 60 days, 4:04, 2 users, load average: 0.15, 0.27, 0.18
    It is better to have been wasted and then sober
    than to never have been wasted at all
     
    alexd, Apr 4, 2010
    #11
  12. Tom

    bod43 Guest

    On 2 Apr, 18:40, Tom <> wrote:
    > On Apr 1, 12:30 pm, bod43 <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 30 Mar, 18:23, Mark Huizer <>
    > > wrote:

    >
    > > > The wise Tom enlightened me with:

    >
    > > > > I know that the private network ranges of 192.168.0.0, 10.0.0.0 and
    > > > > 172.16.0.0..thru 172.31.0.0 are used for internal LAN's.

    >
    > > > > However I'm seeing a lot of usage lately on internal networks using
    > > > > 192.169.1.1 and 192.169.1.4, and sometimes 192.169.2.1...etc...  I
    > > > > thought these were public IP's.  Just curious because I've seen this
    > > > > quite often recently.

    >
    > > > > Is there something I'm missing here with the 192.169.0.0 networks?
    > > > > Is this a new reservation that I'm not aware of?

    >
    > > > I guess these are people who don't really care about the public networks
    > > > they can't reach anymore. It's still public IP space

    >
    > > > Mark

    >
    > > I would guess that it might have started with a typo, or perhaps
    > > someone followed on from 168.

    >
    > > As discussed, it is in the Public address space.

    >
    > Thanks Everyone...turns out that the person who is doing this just
    > does not accept it as a problem and I'm having to pound it into upper
    > management to try to get them to see the importance because it's part
    > of our product.
    >
    > Thanks for the comments:)


    Sorry for the delay. Thing is if I was presented with a product
    that required *ANY* static IP range other than one
    registered to the product's manufacturer I would ROFL.

    Then I would kick the sales team out - forever.

    If I found that some product was using an address range
    registered to someone else I would have them escorted
    from the premises and make sure that we never dealt
    with them ever again in any capacity.

    What you describe is simply stupid.
     
    bod43, Apr 19, 2010
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page