Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:23:26 -0800 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-transfer-encoding: |
7BIT |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Organization: |
General Magic |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I had written:
> -----Original Message-----
> > I have a client that "Needs" 30 IP addresses. He absolutely refuses
> > to use internal #'s (90.x.x.x, 10.x.x.x, 192.x.x.x).
>
> 90.x.x.x is not an internal range. 192.168.x.x are internal, all
> other 192.x.x.x are not.
On 14 Apr 99, at 13:58, Peter Shkabara wrote:
> Based on information published in PC Week, the following addresses are
> reserved for internal use (not routed by Internet):
>
> 10.x.x.x
This is correct.
> 90.0.0.x
A search of ARIN (American Registry of Internet Numbers) reveals only
that this is part of a reserved range from 64.0.0.0 through 95.255.255.255.
A search of AltaVista for [+"90.0.0.0" address range +ip rfc] uncovers
one use as an example of "a valid class A address", and a bunch of (false)
hits on pages of statistics, mostly about baseball.
> 172.16.x.x through 172.32.x.x
This is correct.
> 192.168.x.x
This is also correct.
If PC Week was correct about the 90.0.0.x block, it's a deep dark
secret from the rest of the network community. I think it's more
likely that they got this wrong.
David G
The PCBUILD web site always needs good submissions. If
you would like to contribute to the website, send any
hardware tech tips or hardware reviews to:
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|