Re: local-only IPs ?

Dale E. Reed Jr. ( (no email) )
Thu, 05 Jun 1997 23:27:25 -0700

Joseph Bridgewater wrote:
>
> We know (or believe) that 10.x.x.x is designated for internal-only
> non-internet routed traffic, but NT appears to have a problem in that
> no
> matter what static routing you do, M$ seems to have decided you
> actually
> want to route them as a Class A and not really as Class Cs.
>
> This causes problems if you want to have, for example, 10.1.1.x, 10.1.2.x,
> and 10.2.1.x be on separate LAN networks, with different computers on
> two of those.

I have setup a LOT of multi-homed NT servers with 10.x.x.x on the
internal
and real internet on the outside without a problem. One site had five
class
cs as 10.1.0.0, 10.2.0.0, 10.3.0.0, 10.4.0.0, and 10.5.0.0 and it all
worked
fine. We had to static in the 10.x.0.0 routes just like you are
saying.

> The question is two fold;
> 1) are there other IPs (perhaps such as 11.x.x.x, 12.x.x.x and 13.x.x.x)
> that are designated for inter-use only? Or at least can be used without
> causing any sort of problems?

There is one class A (10.0.0.0) and one class B designated for this.
I think there might be a class c, but I can't remember.

> 2) and does anybody know the RFC(s) where I can read about
> internal-use IPs?

I typically use a search engine to find this (like Alta Vista). There
is a place that has all the RFCs is a not format.

-- Dale E. Reed Jr.  (daler@iea.com)_________________________________________________________________       IEA Software, Inc.      |  RadiusNT, Emerald, and NT FAQs Internet Solutions for Today  |    http://www.emerald.iea.com