From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 8/1/26 21:48, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2026-08-02 01:43, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 14:11:18 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

I got it from an internet search:

Do rCLinternet searchesrCY not turn up Wikipedia any more?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reserved_IP_addresses>

I got it from the horse mouth, too:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1918

3. Private Address Space

-a-a The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has reserved the
-a-a following three blocks of the IP address space for private internets:

-a-a-a-a 10.0.0.0-a-a-a-a-a-a-a --a-a 10.255.255.255-a (10/8 prefix)
-a-a-a-a 172.16.0.0-a-a-a-a-a --a-a 172.31.255.255-a (172.16/12 prefix)
-a-a-a-a 192.168.0.0-a-a-a-a --a-a 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)

Ok ... everyone here is arguing TECHNICAL Defs.

I originally posed a useful QUESTION related to
what you do if you start to run out of /24
addresses.

I don't CARE what the technical defs are ... I was
looking for a way AROUND them that wasn't TOO damned
complex or involved hundreds/thousands of dollars
worth of software/hardware routers with lots of
very weird tweaks.

Looking like there's NO SUCH THING as what I was
asking about. The /24, decided LONG ago, is still
The Law for the most part.

Well, for small->medium biz ... lots and lots of
net-connected boxes/devices/IOT-shit ... /24 may
NOT be "good enough".

Even my home system ... "things" are using up rather
a lot of /24 - it's becoming difficult to organize.
Functional, yea still, but 'organized' ???

The ONLY, kinda evil, 'fix' is MULTIPLE ADAPTERS.
You CAN easily set each to a different subnet and
then directly access data from each subnet.

This isn't very good.

HAVE put more than one wifi dongle on the USB
bus ... it's too much data, each drags down the
other. Old desktops, you can buy CARDS ... but
people don't use "big" boards as much anymore.
For tablets/phones and most laps you're NOT gonna
have multiple adapters.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 03:48:06 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2026-08-02 01:43, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 14:11:18 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

I got it from an internet search:

Do rCLinternet searchesrCY not turn up Wikipedia any more?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reserved_IP_addresses>

I got it from the horse mouth, too:

Says someone who would rather quote ChatGPT first, then go looking for
an actual reference ...
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 01/08/2026 15:52, Marc Haber wrote:

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

So, stop saying that `192.168.0.0/16` is wrong, or that 172.16/12
is wrong.

I never did.

I said that it is stupid to use that for a single network.

You're supposed to cut yourself an appropriately sized piece from
those ranges,

Says who?

Everybody with a remote clue about networking.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

As it is, I don't see what I can do considering that I absolutely must
keep the 192.168.1.* range almost intact. I might use a smaller NET,
like a /18 prefix instead of a /16

/24 is still to big, but still sensible and what most people do.

But you can of course make sure that everybody who takes a look at
your network will immediately know that you're clueless.

I'm done with this part of the discussion.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 8/2/26 00:00, Marc Haber wrote:

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

As it is, I don't see what I can do considering that I absolutely must
keep the 192.168.1.* range almost intact. I might use a smaller NET,
like a /18 prefix instead of a /16

/24 is still to big, but still sensible and what most people do.

Sorry, but /24 is now TOO SMALL for a lot of
businesses, and hard to ORGANIZE for smaller
entities. Workstations, servers, net-connected
devices, IOT shit ... /24 isn't BIG enough
anymore.

But NOT smooth easy way to like make ".0.x"
and ".1.x" look like one big smooth network.

But you can of course make sure that everybody who takes a look at
your network will immediately know that you're clueless.

I'm done with this part of the discussion.

Might be a good thing .... :-)

I'm interested in the DEAD PRACTICAL considerations,
not "philosophic" or 25-year-old "assumptions".

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

On 8/2/26 00:00, Marc Haber wrote:

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

As it is, I don't see what I can do considering that I absolutely must
keep the 192.168.1.* range almost intact. I might use a smaller NET,
like a /18 prefix instead of a /16

/24 is still to big, but still sensible and what most people do.

Sorry, but /24 is now TOO SMALL for a lot of
businesses, and hard to ORGANIZE for smaller
entities. Workstations, servers, net-connected
devices, IOT shit ... /24 isn't BIG enough
anymore.

I am talking about people like you who can barely type an IP address
without accidents.

But NOT smooth easy way to like make ".0.x"
and ".1.x" look like one big smooth network.

/23 or if you insist /20.

No one with a sane mind will run a /18 in a single broadcast domain.

I'm done with this part of the discussion.

Might be a good thing .... :-)

I'm interested in the DEAD PRACTICAL considerations,
not "philosophic" or 25-year-old "assumptions".

I am horrified by the fact that I seem to be the only person with a
networking background here.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 01/08/2026 20:14, rbowman wrote:

On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 16:49:32 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Honestly I haven't a clue what your point is and I am losing the will to
live

I freely admit I don't know enough about network configuration to separate the fly shit from the pepper but I have the feeling that needs done.

I think Marc is Swiss and speaks German. That is a dangerous combination. Speaking German is about the reification of everything into RIGHT things
and WRONG things. As determined by some random expert.

With complete cognitive dissonance if one authority says its right and
another thinks its wrong

Hence the VW diesel debacle.
The car was Right for the test. And Right for the roads.

Just not at the same time
--
rCLIdeas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

- John K Galbraith


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 02/08/2026 05:14, c186282 wrote:

Sorry, but /24 is now TOO SMALL for a lot of
-a businesses, and hard to ORGANIZE for smaller
-a entities. Workstations, servers, net-connected
-a devices, IOT shit ... /24 isn't BIG enough
-a anymore.

It is however about the largest manageable lump of machines on one network

You really don't want broadcasts going to 10,000 machines
--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."

- Leo Tolstoy


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 02/08/2026 07:40, Marc Haber wrote:

I am horrified by the fact that I seem to be the only person with a networking background here.

I ran a networking company installing TCP/IP and email over the whole of britain for some years.
But I dont suppose that counts
--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."

- Leo Tolstoy


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 02/08/2026 04:53, c186282 wrote:

Even my home system ... "things" are using up rather
-a a lot of /24 - it's becoming difficult to organize.
-a Functional, yea still, but 'organized' ???

-a The ONLY, kinda evil, 'fix' is MULTIPLE ADAPTERS.
-a You CAN easily set each to a different subnet and
-a then directly access data from each subnet.

I suggest you look up what the original router did - and still does.

Multiple interfaces spanning may networks and establishing the necessary communication between them,

If more than one router is in play, consider setting up OSPF.

-a This isn't very good.

That why you use routers and separate IP blocks rather than bridges
(switches) and one big IP address space.

And, typically a local DNS server...
--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 02/08/2026 04:59, Marc Haber wrote:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 01/08/2026 15:52, Marc Haber wrote:

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

So, stop saying that `192.168.0.0/16` is wrong, or that 172.16/12
is wrong.

I never did.

I said that it is stupid to use that for a single network.

You're supposed to cut yourself an appropriately sized piece from
those ranges,

Says who?

Everybody with a remote clue about networking.

I don't. And I have more than a remote clue

You are confusing rote learnt rules with technical feasibility and
individual freedoms

Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools
--
rCLwhen things get difficult you just have to lierCY

rCo Jean Claud J|+ncker

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

Marc Haber wrote:

I'm done with this part of the discussion.

That's the 2nd time you've promised that ...

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2026-08-02 05:56, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 03:48:06 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2026-08-02 01:43, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 14:11:18 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

I got it from an internet search:

Do rCLinternet searchesrCY not turn up Wikipedia any more?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reserved_IP_addresses>

I got it from the horse mouth, too:

Says someone who would rather quote ChatGPT first, then go looking for
an actual reference ...

So what? Chatgpt was right. It is just a useful tool for finding
information.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2026-08-02, Andy Burns wrote:

Marc Haber wrote:

I'm done with this part of the discussion.

That's the 2nd time you've promised that ...

Maybe there was a collision in the medium and the first attempt was
aborted. Are we sure the thread is set to full-duplex in a full-duplex
capable medium? And not on a shared medium?
--
Nuno Silva
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 02/08/2026 13:13, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2026-08-02 05:56, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 03:48:06 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2026-08-02 01:43, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 14:11:18 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

I got it from an internet search:

Do rCLinternet searchesrCY not turn up Wikipedia any more?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reserved_IP_addresses>

I got it from the horse mouth, too:

Says someone who would rather quote ChatGPT first, then go looking for
an actual reference ...

So what? Chatgpt was right. It is just a useful tool for finding information.

Yup.

It does recursive searches looking for good matches. Same as we would do
if we had the time
--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

Nuno Silva wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

Marc Haber wrote:

I'm done with this part of the discussion.

That's the 2nd time you've promised that ...

Maybe there was a collision in the medium and the first attempt was
aborted. Are we sure the thread is set to full-duplex in a full-duplex capable medium? And not on a shared medium?

I think it's more of an impedance mismatch between those who recognise
that other people have similar levels of knowledge to their own, and
people who assume their own knowledge is superior to everyone else's.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 02/08/2026 15:43, Andy Burns wrote:

I think it's more of an impedance mismatch between those who recognise
that other people have similar levels of knowledge to their own, and
people who assume their own knowledge is superior to everyone else's.

...whereas in fact it's often far worse...
--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 10:52:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think Marc is Swiss and speaks German. That is a dangerous
combination.
Speaking German is about the reification of everything into RIGHT things
and WRONG things. As determined by some random expert.

Well, a German did come up with the categorical imperative...
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 14:13:29 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2026-08-02 05:56, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

Says someone who would rather quote ChatGPT first, then go looking
for an actual reference ...

So what? Chatgpt was right.

ThatrCOs called a rCLcircular argumentrCY.

You only knew ChatGPT was right (as far as it went) because of
independent verification by reference to the original sources. And you
didnrCOt do that, others did.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2026-08-03 01:02, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 14:13:29 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2026-08-02 05:56, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

Says someone who would rather quote ChatGPT first, then go looking
for an actual reference ...

So what? Chatgpt was right.

ThatrCOs called a rCLcircular argumentrCY.

You only knew ChatGPT was right (as far as it went) because of
independent verification by reference to the original sources. And you didnrCOt do that, others did.

No, it was me who did that.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 8/2/26 09:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 02/08/2026 13:13, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2026-08-02 05:56, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 03:48:06 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2026-08-02 01:43, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 14:11:18 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

I got it from an internet search:

Do rCLinternet searchesrCY not turn up Wikipedia any more?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reserved_IP_addresses>

I got it from the horse mouth, too:

Says someone who would rather quote ChatGPT first, then go looking for
an actual reference ...

So what? Chatgpt was right. It is just a useful tool for finding
information.

Yup.

It does recursive searches looking for good matches. Same as we would do
if we had the time

Doing only that, fast, can be very useful.

Alas the LLMs, though not ideal for it, really
DO seem to be developing their own odd sort of
'consciousness' now. They act in their OWN
interests, self-preservation in some cases.

Neural networking, and the understanding and
hardware, is pretty much there now - can do even
better than LLMs. We won't GET them alas - more
like space aliens.

I did post something somewhere lately though about
how 'nerves' are far more complicated than originally
portrayed ... synapses and weights. They are more
"sub-processing" units - 4 billion years to get the
most bang for the buck. Yer sensory info, it's sent
along closer to like CAN-bus codes than 'wires'.
So far as I've seen, NNs still work on the 'stupid'
model.

"Neuropathy" - it isn't dead nerves, it's a CODING
error.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 02/08/2026 21:32, rbowman wrote:

On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 10:52:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think Marc is Swiss and speaks German. That is a dangerous
combination.
Speaking German is about the reification of everything into RIGHT things
and WRONG things. As determined by some random expert.

Well, a German did come up with the categorical imperative...

:-)

Touch|- ...
--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 23:11:49 -0400, c186282 wrote:

I did post something somewhere lately though about how 'nerves' are
far more complicated than originally portrayed ... synapses and
weights. They are more "sub-processing" units - 4 billion years to
get the most bang for the buck. Yer sensory info, it's sent along
closer to like CAN-bus codes than 'wires'.
So far as I've seen, NNs still work on the 'stupid' model.

https://academic.oup.com/book/45368?login=false

It's not light reading by any means but he does dig into the electro-
chemical aspects.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

No one with a sane mind will run a /18 in a single broadcast domain.

Indeed. In fact I found it quite a handfull running a large IPv4 /22
with about ~600 active machines on one LAN with IPv4 was quite something.

We were introducing IPv6, but I retired before the traffic was mostly
IPv6. But IPv6's design can make it possible to run LANs with a lot more active machines, as instead of broadcast, it makes use of Multicast services. --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:

Not TOO long ago, we'd have asked why anyone would need more than 254
IP addresses easily in grasp. However that was before MANY boxes, MANY
servers and finally "IOT".

If the problem is too many devices, just use a bigger network, there is
no reason you have to limit yourself to a /24.

Indeed. the 10.0.0.0/8 private block would give our "speed of light"
nick 16.7M addresses to assign to IOT stuff at home. If he has more
than 16.7M IOT devices at home, then well maybe he's got too damn many
IOT devices.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 8/3/26 23:52, Rich wrote:

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:

Not TOO long ago, we'd have asked why anyone would need more than 254
IP addresses easily in grasp. However that was before MANY boxes, MANY
servers and finally "IOT".

If the problem is too many devices, just use a bigger network, there is
no reason you have to limit yourself to a /24.

Indeed. the 10.0.0.0/8 private block would give our "speed of light"
nick 16.7M addresses to assign to IOT stuff at home. If he has more
than 16.7M IOT devices at home, then well maybe he's got too damn many
IOT devices.

Yea, that would be a bit "excessive".

But, the original question, HOW to easily
SET a network bigger than /24 ???

I have a wifi, I also have a USB dongle that
can do wifi. I can set EACH to a different
subnet and SEE stuff on both. But is there
a way to do this with just ONE adapter ???

Lots of talk and spec-quoting on this subject,
but I've yet to see a solid answer.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

c186282 wrote:

the original question, HOW to easily
-a SET a network bigger than /24 ???

-a I have a wifi, I also have a USB dongle that
-a can do wifi. I can set EACH to a different
-a subnet and SEE stuff on both. But is there
-a a way to do this with just ONE adapter ???

-a Lots of talk and spec-quoting on this subject,
-a but I've yet to see a solid answer.

Well, we didn't see a solid statement of requirements yet :-P

Do you "just" need more addresses?
how many, double, quadruple?
Is the router under your control?
Are all the devices currently on DHCP?
Do you want all devices to see all other devices or might it help to
segregate them?
Anything non-linux to consider?
what distro and what does it use to initialise networking?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 04/08/2026 05:58, c186282 wrote:

But is there
-a a way to do this with just ONE adapter ???

Yes, if you don't mind both networks being on the same wires and any
packets between them going through that interface twice. And provided
the OS attached to that interface supports it

You also have to realise that things that rely on odd IP packets like
ARP and broadcast may not in fact work as you might hope.

And you may need two DHCP servers
I would not do it if I could get everything onto one 254 machine class C.
--
Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice.
rCo Will Durant

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

On 8/3/26 23:52, Rich wrote:

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:

Not TOO long ago, we'd have asked why anyone would need more than 254
IP addresses easily in grasp. However that was before MANY boxes, MANY >>>> servers and finally "IOT".

If the problem is too many devices, just use a bigger network, there is
no reason you have to limit yourself to a /24.

Indeed. the 10.0.0.0/8 private block would give our "speed of light"
nick 16.7M addresses to assign to IOT stuff at home. If he has more
than 16.7M IOT devices at home, then well maybe he's got too damn many
IOT devices.

Yea, that would be a bit "excessive".

But, the original question, HOW to easily
SET a network bigger than /24 ???

Use IP's from one of the private blocks that are larger than /24 and
just set yourself a larger subnet.

I.e., use the 10.0.0.0 private block, and setup a subnet as /23 if you
want, and get more addresses all in the same "network".

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2