[BC] "Jealous" equipment

[Cowboy]

On Friday 13 February 2009 12:41 am, Alan Alsobrook wrote:
>  I've also seen this especially with the new Westwood MAX receiver. When 
>  you first turn it on it's NOT DHCP enabled and it's on 192.168.1.1, 
>  which happens to be the static address of many (Linksys default) 
>  routers. Talk about an instant LAN clog up.

 192.168.x.x is non-routable local by assignment, so is a default choice
 for LAN addresses by many.
 Typical defaults are 192.168.1.x ( usually 192.168.1.1 ) and 192.168.254.x
 ( usually 192.168.254.254 )

 Linksys does assign a default address, but it's easily changed.

 Very, very poorly engineered systems might be found with 192.168.0.x,
 but using a bit-mask as an address is a REAL bad idea, except of course,
 for Micro$oft who invented IP and all of the routing conventions.  ;)
 Equally as bad an idea would be using 192.168.255.x though most equipment,
 even including M$, will crash on that bit-mask.
 It's good that M$ got it at least half right.
 If you find an "IT" guy who assigns zero as an address,
 that's your first clue to not hire him !

 Technically, zero can be used in the second and third octets, but this then
 creates dependencies on several other things, usually unknown to the few
 who do it, thus causing a myriad of predictable problems.
 It can never be used as a host address.
 This is part of the reason you do find zero in the "local machine only" 127.x.x.x
 block, as it'll never be found on a real network.

 An address conflict may cause a M$ network to clog or crash, but in any other
 context it merely causes either or both of the machines claiming the same address
 to  become non-reachable, and hence non-existent as far as the network
 is concerned.

-- 
Cowboy