Something I never understood is why people choose 192.168.1.1 for private networks.
Being all the other factors equal, isn't 10.1.1.1 easier to type and more "aesthetically pleasant"?
Being all the other factors equal, isn't 10.1.1.1 easier to type and more "aesthetically pleasant"?
While interviewing someone for an entry-level job, I told the interviewee that there was a network using 10.0/16 (a 16-bit subnet mask, or more popularly 10.0.x.x). He corrected me and said that 10.0.0.0 networks should have an 8 bit subnet mask (10.x.x.x). On one hand, I definitely liked that he was willing to challenge me, even during an interview, and that he knew the spec (RFC 1918 does assign an 8-bit mask to the 10. private network). On the other hand, I wasn't sure he was technically correct that a 16-bit mask was wrong, even if 8-bits was 'correct', and I couldn't see what negative consequence the 16-bit subnet had - his thinking seemed a bit rigid. Anyway, maybe there are other purists who believe smaller networks should use 192.168/16, or maybe they instinctively use it because the RFC gives it the smaller network allocation. Or maybe they know something that I don't.
> isn't 10.1.1.1 easier to type and more "aesthetically pleasant"?
And it's much easier for non-technical people to understand and to remember without error. In fact, I recommend something even easier, such as 10.9.8.x. For people supporting the non-technical, those little details can save hours, even a day. I've seen cases where after hours of frustration, the support tech discovers that the user typed in something like 129.168, or 192.16.8. Great support reps are great humanitarians, able to handle those situations with grace, without humiliating the poor user, and without heavy drinking.
EDIT: clarifying edit
With a /8 (especially with desktop machines) the broadcast would definitely be a major bottleneck in the network.
Is that what you meant to say? The interviewer (me) thought that 10.0/16 was fine, which I think agrees with your analysis. The interviewee said only 10/8 was correct.
(Re-reading my GP comment I realize that my role might have been ambiguous, so I've clarified it.)
I remember when CIDR came around back in the 90's. Man people were pissed off when you would call out a 'Class A/B/C/D/E' block. I prefer to always be specific when writing my CIDR. I understand when people don't do it.
Be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you send.
I think there is some misunderstanding. The question wasn't the notation but the subnetting. See the story in the GGP.
That means that you can not use 10.0.0.0/7 (which would include 11.0.0.0) but you can use 10.0.0.32/30, that includes from 10.0.0.32 until 10.0.0.35.
There's also 172.16.0.x, which I have never seen used by default on any networking devices.. which makes it perfect if you have a piece of network that you visibly want to separate from the rest of the LAN.