🚀 go-pugleaf

rwi@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au (Ross Irvine) writes:
>: Nathan D (nathand@avon.net.au) wrote:
>: : that a lot use 192.168.1.x as an example.  Is there any reason to use this instead of
>: : 192.168.0.x as my machines are at the moment (ie 192.168.0.1 & 192.168.0.2)?
>
>I think Nathan's was, is the 192.168.0 network valid?
>
>Eg Can I have 50 machines with Ip addresses started at 192.168.0.1, 
>192.168.0.2 etc etc
>
>I'm also interested in this.

I reckon the answer's "yes".  I gave the (2) machines on my network the
numbers 192.168.0.1 and 192.168.0.2 from reading the howtos etc, then
saw examples seem to start from 192.168.1.0, but I don't know why.

The only "reserved" addresses are 192.168.0.0 and 192.168.0.255,
anything in between should be fine.  Mine certainly works OK (including
one machine with a dialup PPP link).

Dave.
-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
|      .                                                                  |
|  _--_|\       To send me email, replace "seemysig" with "suburbia"      |
| /      \  Rev. David Fitch           http://www.suburbia.com.au/~darius |
| \_.--._/ "I am minuspeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused |
|       v   you such perricabobulations".  E Blackadder to Samuel Johnson |
|_________________________________________________________________________|