On Monday 05 June 2023 at 06:19:14, Ralph Ronnquist wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 08:48:00PM -0500, o1bigtenor via Dng wrote:
> >
> > So if I wanted I could have 192.168.0.0/12 and I have the same address
> > space as in 172.16.x.x/12?
>
> Sure, though it'd be called 192.160.0.0/12 (the identity in the first
> 12 bits and the rest 0), and it would of course also include addresses
> outside of the 192.168.0.0/16 block of "private addresses"; i.e all 16
> "/16-blocks" from 192.160.x.x to 192.175.x.x.

I strongly advise against doing this sort of thing - going outside the official
RFC 1918 private address space for your internal networks.

Technically there is nothing to stop you doing so, but as soon as you "hijack"
real-world public addresses and use them for internal purposes, you block any
possibility of you being able to contact those addresses out on the Internet,
and without very careful and tedious research, you never know who owns (or
will own) an address in that space which you might one day want to talk to.

So, if you do want a /12 netmask, please start from 172.16 or 10.x and not
192.160


Antony.

--
Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) was first released on this day in 1991.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

                                                   Please reply to the list;
                                                         please *don't* CC me.