Weird IP address I got

Kareem

Hey everyone.. I was checking my real IP and I saw it was 94.*.*.0 ( Ogero )

Actually it is weird to see an IP ending by 0 or 255.. I thought those were reserved

I was reading on some websites that such Ips cannot be used because they are reserved. However there are some sources where they mention that it can be done but will not work properly for some devices rejecting such format.

Maybe it will only conflict with /24

Anybody cares to explain ?

J4D

has it been always like that or recently changed ?

Kareem

I get different IP everytime I reboot the modem, but this IP I got lately is really weird.

J4D

It is a common misconception that addresses ending in 255 or 0 can never be assigned , its quite normal . this thing is strange only in class c old networks were there will be a conflict with the ips . if all internet apps work fine then dont care nothing is wrong its just normal :)

Kareem

that's why I mentioned that maybe only /24 will suffer.. but also I think some switches/routers will reject that kind of IPs.

BashLogic

Kareem wroteHey everyone.. I was checking my real IP and I saw it was 94.*.*.0 ( Ogero )

Actually it is weird to see an IP ending by 0 or 255.. I thought those were reserved

I was reading on some websites that such Ips cannot be used because they are reserved. However there are some sources where they mention that it can be done but will not work properly for some devices rejecting such format.

Maybe it will only conflict with /24

Anybody cares to explain ?

Hello Mr NsN ! :)

ofcourse such an address is possible! it has to do with masking and the architecture of IP networks!

you can always have a subnet but you do not always need to have a gateway! a subnet size is defined by its size which is presented by its mask, for example 255.255.255.0 gives you 254 ip addresses, a mask of 255.255.254.0 would give you 508 ip addresses, 255.255.253.0 gives you 762 ip addresses.
within the subnet you need only one broadcasting address. that is why for example in a 255.255.255.0 subnet you get only 254 an not 255 at your disposal. so when you have a mask of 255.255.253.0 you still need only one such special address. so if you think in a running order of what are the ip addresses that you can get,
lets say a 255.255.253.0 for 192.168.1.0 well your usabler addresses are anywhere between 192.168.1.1-192.168.3.255 with only one special address so in that case the 192.168.1.255 and the 192.168.2.0 and 192.168.2.255 and 192.168.3.0 are valid ip addresses. unfortuantelly this causes confusion but still should work!

what is this special broadcast address? well...
In computer networking, a broadcast address is a network address that allows information to be sent to all nodes on a network, rather than to a specific network host.

more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_address

do i need to explain more Mr NsN ;)

PS: I hope i got it right this time, im not sure if im right, im so tired from work, i could be very wrong with what i just told you!

Kareem

You missed the real question. Are the hardware equipments totally compatible with such configuration? It is easy to read the basic wikipedia networking basics. But thanks anyway...Bash

battikh

^^ yes they are, network equipments are configured with both the IP and the netmask...
in network configuration, you always define the netmask/wildcardmask, being for the ip address of the equipment, routing, access lists, ... it's never an ip alone.

teodorgeorgiev

Kareem,

that is the issue. In theory BashLogic is completely right. In fact, some equipment (firewalls/routers in the very worst case IMHO) could drop
your packets, just because the source/destination IP ends at 0 or 255 despite the fact that this is not a networking address, the remote end
has NO WAY TO KNOW THE SUBNET MASK.

So, BashLogic, your wave of sarcasm is not really needed :|

Kareem

Thanks Teo, I believe it's safe then to stay away from such a setup. I got used to BashLogic sarcasm but I forgive him he was sleepy.

Joe

you can always have a subnet but you do not always need to have a gateway! a subnet size is defined by its size which is presented by its mask, for example 255.255.255.0 gives you 254 ip addresses, a mask of 255.255.254.0 would give you 508 ip addresses, 255.255.253.0 gives you 762 ip addresses.
within the subnet you need only one broadcasting address. that is why for example in a 255.255.255.0 subnet you get only 254 an not 255 at your disposal. so when you have a mask of 255.255.253.0 you still need only one such special address. so if you think in a running order of what are the ip addresses that you can get,
lets say a 255.255.253.0 for 192.168.1.0 well your usabler addresses are anywhere between 192.168.1.1-192.168.3.255 with only one special address so in that case the 192.168.1.255 and the 192.168.2.0 and 192.168.2.255 and 192.168.3.0 are valid ip addresses. unfortuantelly this causes confusion but still should work!

what is this special broadcast address? well...
In computer networking, a broadcast address is a network address that allows information to be sent to all nodes on a network, rather than to a specific network host.

Well you seem to forget about the first address of the subnet, which isn't used for naming conventions. So that's two invalid IP addresses per subnet.

rolf

teodorgeorgiev wroteyour packets, just because the source/destination IP ends at 0 or 255 despite the fact that this is not a networking address, the remote end
has NO WAY TO KNOW THE SUBNET MASK.

why?

++++++++++
AFAIK, 255 is a special multicast or broadcast address, and i dont know about 0. I thought 0 at the end of the address was illegal but it looks not, according to what i read here.

BashLogic

rahmu wroteWell you seem to forget about the first address of the subnet, which isn't used for naming conventions. So that's two invalid IP addresses per subnet.

I knew i forgot to mention something.. i just was so tired when i replied to this thread that i couldnt bother to check on what i forgot! anyhow, IP networking has not been my job field for 10 years :)

its funny to see how this antique protocol still dominates the scene. IPv6 is a bit problematic and more complex and it wont be anytime soon that we would be seeing it. i remember all the hype that was going on back at the turn of the millenium and still today barelly a few have implemented it for backbone or commercial use. even in the commercial sector, there is no demmand nor interest in deploying it in a major and effective way simply becuase it has not matured. in turn, ipv4, thou has limitations and issues as well, it has a long history with lots of "tools & softwares" making it the prefered stable protocol to use.

Joe

I never worked in networking ... just had a course about it last year.