Which private network range do you use?

The default private LAN IP range seems to be 192.168.0.0 but 172.16.0.0 and 10.0.0.0 are also available. I can't imaging many people here have use for the 16 million private address 10.0.0.0 offers, but I wonder if anyone does use the 'other' ranges. And why?

I'm kinda attracted to the 10.0.0.0 range. I think 10.11.12.13 might be an easier address to remember than 192.168.99.87.

Not interested in IPv6 addresses internally. They're not human usable as far as I'm concerned.

There is also the 169.254.0.0/16 link local range to throw in the mix. Although I have never found it useful, certain Microsoft OS's used to cause a nuisance of themselves by putting themselves on that range for no good reason.

I run several /24's from 10.0.0.0/8 and also IPv6 for my LAN and a /24 from 172.16.0.0/12 for the guest wifi, which is IPV4 only.

Main reasons are that new kit comes in with a default IP address in 192.168.0.0/16 and it is less confusing to find them on the network and then put them in a different range, plus as you say 10.0.0.0/8 offers more memorable addresses. Only problem was that my former wireless ISP used 10.0.0.0/8 addresses for their CGNAT network, when they should have been using 100.64.0.0/12. I wasn't happy about that.

I have always gone for 172.6.x.x for my own personal networks. At times, I may have been working with various infrastructures and they were always on 169.x.x.x or 10.x.x.x and I this knoew whether I was on corporate or personal. It could be fun at times, with two or three PCs running simultaneously connected to infrastructure in UK, Singapore, Australia and N America.

In reply to a post by Woolwich:

The default private LAN IP range seems to be 192.168.0.0 but 172.16.0.0 and 10.0.0.0 are also available. I can't imaging many people here have use for the 16 million private address 10.0.0.0 offers, but I wonder if anyone does use the 'other' ranges. And why?

Lots of (very large) corporate networks use the 10 range (old Class A); so that you can do things such as 10.<building>.<floor>.<device> type numbering and routing. Then you nat or proxy those connections that need to go externally through the firewall.

I'm kinda attracted to the 10.0.0.0 range. I think 10.11.12.13 might be an easier address to remember than 192.168.99.87. Not interested in IPv6 addresses internally. They're not human usable as far as I'm concerned.

We all should be moving away from thinking of devices by IP and thinking by name, and letting the network convert name to IP, then IPv4 or IPv6 doesn't matter.

Back in the 1980s most companies running PC networks (those not using terminals) were typically on Novell's Netware using the IPX/SPX and there was no such thing as an IP address. Or really small networks using Windows for Workgroups were on the Microsoft NetBEUI / IBM's OS/2 NetBIOS and these are self-configuring, there is no 'address'.

Firewall and manage your LAN properly and v4 and v6 will interoperate without issue.

IPv4 "local addressing" ranges are in RFC 1918
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1918

Edited by jchamier (Sat 06-Apr-24 18:12:55)

In reply to a post by MHC:

I have always gone for 172.6.x.x for my own personal networks. At times, I may have been working with various infrastructures and they were always on 169.x.x.x or 10.x.x.x and I this knoew whether I was on corporate or personal. It could be fun at times, with two or three PCs running simultaneously connected to infrastructure in UK, Singapore, Australia and N America.

Corporately we used to interopeate with thousands of customers, network's connected (and lots of firewall rules at each end!). A client that had 10.x.x.x had to be NAT'd to somewhere in our IP space, absolute pain in the ....

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Corporately we used to interopeate with thousands of customers, network's connected (and lots of firewall rules at each end!). A client that had 10.x.x.x had to be NAT'd to somewhere in our IP space, absolute pain in the ....

Is that not a problem of IPv4 rather than a problem of 10.0.0.0/8?

In reply to a post by DFScale:

Is that not a problem of IPv4 rather than a problem of 10.0.0.0/8?

Its a problem of our legacy business (now exited) that needed to connect (routed) between our network and our clients... some clients had their own Class A (e.g. US government) but the majority were on 10.... thankfully that is a legacy business model now. IPv6 internally even 15 years ago was unheard of.

I use 10.0.0.0, with the second octet changing per site. So one site has a 10.100.0.0/16, next up has a 10.101.0.0/16 etc.

At home I select subnets of 192.168.0.0/16 (/24 by default)
but for small business work I use 172.x (16 ≤ x ≤ 31) and the subnets are sized according to use case (/22 by default).

I routinely avoid the more common subnets (0,1 and 16,31 respectively).

For a large enterprise we used various sized subnets of 10.0.0.0/8 so it's not particularly useful to choose these for home if ever do remote working (be it employee or contractor). That's to say it's not forbidden but just adds unnecessary gotchas in troubleshooting connectivity and opportunities for confusion for ICT service desk support.

Bottom line they are just addresses to administer
with v6 is it much easier to either use GUA delegated from ISP or ULA generated as per RFCs to minimise overlap.

Any host offering services within the LAN gets an entry in the private DNS of the LAN so that the network can resolve A and/or AAAA by a FQDN rather than needing memorable IPs.

192.168.1.0/24 for home. It's tradition.

I've never liked 172.16 for anything - usually leave that for things like Guest WiFi etc.

10. for work.