Odd TCP/IP Subnets

Printable View

June 30th, 2007, 09:22 AM
CybertecOne

Odd TCP/IP Subnets

Hey all,

I think i got the right forum as its not really security related:p

Situation; Windows 2003 SBS Domain environment w/ x number of clients.

AFIK the most commonly used IP configuration is 192.168.0.0 or 1.0 / 255.255.255.0
Can someone give the quick rundown as to why this is or the reason for its high useage.

My question is; Is it possible to cause problems with the network by having an unusual subnet config. Take these for example;

10.10.0.0 / 255.0.0.0 <--- Fairly normal IMO

what if

10.10.0.0 / 255.255.255.0 <--- what would this change impact and are there other odd configurations that could do the same.

Any good links would be great including "Daryl's TCP/IP Primer" wherever that may be found :D

Thanks peeps

CTO
June 30th, 2007, 10:40 AM
IKnowNot

Quote:

Can someone give the quick rundown as to why this is or the reason for its high useage.

lazy admins.

Quote:

what would this change impact and are there other odd configurations that could do the same.

limit the number of available addresses.

I am sorry, I do not think I could explain this in my current condition ( drunk AND frustrated attempting to fix my son's Vista machine! )

But I think you do not understand what a netmask is.
It is basically a very simple concept, but very difficult to get your head around at first.

I would suggest you google ( yea, I know ... ) the terms
"subnet mask"
and
"subnetmask"

There used to be a few threads discussing this a few years back right here; maybe also search the achieves?

Or maybe someone else could explain it better, but I think you need to study up and refine your question a bit ( at least for me with one eye open and cursing at this damn computer. )
June 30th, 2007, 01:18 PM
Nokia

Quote:

AFIK the most commonly used IP configuration is 192.168.0.0 or 1.0 / 255.255.255.0
Can someone give the quick rundown as to why this is or the reason for its high useage.

It is a popular subnet with small businesses as most home/small business networking equipment comes pre-set with this IP range - as there are a lot more small businesses than large ones obviously there will be more smaller networks. Also small businesses may not have an IT department or even a decent system/network admin hence in ignorance they leave most things at default settings.

Quote:

10.10.0.0 / 255.0.0.0 <--- Fairly normal IMO

what if

10.10.0.0 / 255.255.255.0 <--- what would this change impact and are there other odd configurations that could do the same.

With the later /24 mask you would be limiting yourself to 254 usable IP addresses for that subnet.

I think you are trying to ask why use a 192.168.0.0/24 range over a 10.0.0.0/8 range?

One of the main reasons is VPN configurations - say you needed to set up a site-to-site VPN with another customer, chances are they may already have a VPN to another customer using the 192.168.0.0 range, as it is so common (more common than you would think in SME networks). If they already have a VPN with this IP in use then you would have to re-address or segment your LAN to set up a usable VPN.

By using a random subnet you reduce the chance of IP conflicts with other networks; 192.168.171.0/24 for example is not common and would more than likely be free if you needed to set up a VPN. It still allows the same amount of IP addresses as the 192.168.0.0/24 subnet so manageability is the same, it just stands up well for any future compatibility problems you may encounter.

Another reason is manageability - managing a 10.0.0.0/8 subnet can be pretty horrendous once you start adding other subnets, VLAN's, VPN's etc.

By breaking it down into smaller subnets it becomes a much more manageable network and would lead to fewer 'networking' problems.
July 2nd, 2007, 03:41 PM
oofki

CIDR notation, Network Mask, Available Networks, Available Hosts per network, Total usable hosts

/24 255.255.255.0 1 254 254
/25 255.255.255.128 2 126 252
/26 255.255.255.192 4 62 248
/27 255.255.255.224 8 30 240
/28 255.255.255.240 16 14 224
/29 255.255.255.248 32 6 192
/30 255.255.255.252 64 2 128
/31 255.255.255.254 128 2 * 256

^^ Stolen from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subnetwork
also look at http://www.3com.com/other/pdfs/infra..._US/501302.pdf
July 2nd, 2007, 03:50 PM
WolfeTone

Find a book called TCP/IP Illustrated, nice chapter in there covering the different classes of network addresses.
July 2nd, 2007, 06:19 PM
cheyenne1212

As most people have said, wrapping your head around this concept can be tricky at first, but once you understand, I strongly believe you will have a much much larger understanding of how TCP/IP addressing works.

As some have said, it might not seem like a big deal with a small company with a few PC's, but when you get into a large company with multiple remote offices, or work for a ISP, it becomes one of the main things that you will deal with on a day by day basis as servers are added, or new IP ranges are added for customers / servers.
July 3rd, 2007, 01:03 PM
SirDice

Quote:

Originally Posted by CybertecOne

Can someone give the quick rundown as to why this is or the reason for its high useage.

Really quick answer: RFC-1918
July 3rd, 2007, 03:22 PM
CybertecOne

My actual question was:
Is it possible to cause problems with the network by having an unusual subnet config.

And from your answers any setup is fine, and wont cause problems like slow traffic and routing. I guess if i reworded the question, it would sound more like;

Does a 192.168.0.0 network have more throughput than any other config.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, this all came about after setting up a domain with 10.10.0.0/24 and after having issues with net speed he said that the subnetting might be causing the issue and that a 10.10.0.0 network is usually 255.0.0.0 sooo....... is there anything to his claim?

Thanks guys!

CTO
July 3rd, 2007, 04:12 PM
SirDice

Quote:

Originally Posted by CybertecOne

Does a 192.168.0.0 network have more throughput than any other config.

Nope.

Quote:

BTW, this all came about after setting up a domain with 10.10.0.0/24 and after having issues with net speed he said that the subnetting might be causing the issue and that a 10.10.0.0 network is usually 255.0.0.0 sooo....... is there anything to his claim?

No, it's BS. The only reason subnetting could be an issue is when the routing on your network is screwed up. If setup properly, any subnet will perform just like any other.

The other way around could be a performance issue, having a 10.0.0.0/8 network and way to many hosts on it ( i.e. >1000). Performance will degrade because of the amount of broadcasts and hosts trying to send data at the same time. To boost performance networks tend to be subnetted to keep the number of hosts on the same broadcast domain (another term for subnet) below a certain level.
July 3rd, 2007, 08:20 PM
r3b00+

Hes talking through his arse.
The default subnet mask for a class A network i.e. 10.0.0.0 is 255.0.0.0, thats where hes got that from.
This default subnet mask can be changed to another mask depending on how many subnets you require vs how many hosts you require in each subnet.
July 4th, 2007, 01:03 PM
Aardpsymon

its also a good way to keep physically linked systems more secure. We have one physical LAN in the building, but most of it is on two completely different subnets with a different IP range and isolated on a VLAN just to make it difficult for people on one network to access the other.

Why not physically separate them? we have SOME shared resources such as internet connection.
July 6th, 2007, 12:40 PM
CybertecOne

Quote:

Why not physically separate them?

rofl. There is not much to seperate. 1 domain controller with <20 clients. IMO it is a telstra bigpond issue.... tossers. I wonder what people around the world can dig up on Telstra Bigpond (Aus)....... bloody shocking.

Thanks for the input guys, i knew there was nothing to his claims but will never argue my point unless i KNOW i am right.

:)

CTO