On Jun 04, 2023, o1bigtenor via Dng wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 6:24 PM Ralph Ronnquist <rrq@???> wrote:
> > [...]
> > If you go for 172.16.x.x you probably mean 172.16.x.x/12 (or netmask
> > 255.120.0.0).. i.e. IP addresses that are all same in the 12 highest
> > bits, and allowing for 20 bits to host enumeration (plus "broadcast"
> > and "network").
> >
> > That IP space is similar to 192.168.0.0/16 in being an agreed
> > "private" address space, although 16 times larger address space.
>
> 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?

No, since you're only allowed to use 192.168.0.0/16. The rest of
192.160.0.0/12 is publicly routable (and leased out) address space.

There are only three (3) ranged allotted in the RFC 1918 ("private")
address space:

- 10.0.0.0/8 (10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255)
- 172.16.0.0/12 (172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255)
- 192.168.0.0/16 (192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255)

> Hmmmmmmmmmm - - - - is there anything else that might be different
> between using 192.168.x.x and 172.16.x.x ?

The networks themselves (172.17 != 192.168 afterall ;), and total
available subnets (for example, there are only 256 /24s in
192.168.0.0/16 vs 4240 in 172.16.0.0.12).

Note that it is advisable to keep networks down to ABOUT 1000 hosts or
so (a /22), as network overhead can cause problems after that (although,
it also depends on how much actual traffic you need to move).

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860