Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?
-
Is it possible / bad practice to use the first address in the network, for instance 192.168.0.0 (netmask 255.255.255.0) ?
If I remember correctly a long time ago it wasn't possible but nowadays it is. I never use it but when you have small subnets like /29 it could be nice.
-
@Pete-S said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
Is it possible / bad practice to use the first address in the network, for instance 192.168.0.0 (netmask 255.255.255.0) ?
If I remember correctly a long time ago it wasn't possible but nowadays it is. I never use it but when you have small subnets like /29 it could be nice.
I have seen that it depends on the product that you are dealing with. Some might not like it when you use what is typically a network or broadcast address when you are supernetting.
-
@Pete-S
no it is reserved for broadcast stuff. not recommended, i think it is called broadcasting IP
-
@Emad-R said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@Pete-S
no it is reserved for broadcast stuff. not recommended, i think it is called broadcasting IP
I think you are mistaken it for the last IP address which is the broadcast address. So 192.168.0.255 in this case.
-
192.168.0.0 would always be a broadcast address(first address in the range). However, 192.168.1.0, 192.168.2.0 should be usable if you are using a 192.168.0.0/22.
Any good modern network gear should support using it as such.
-
@travisdh1 said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
192.168.0.0 would always be a broadcast address(first address in the range).
Wrong. First is network address, last one is broadcast.
-
@Pete-S said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
Is it possible / bad practice to use the first address in the network, for instance 192.168.0.0
Not according to the protocol. That is the network address, not a host address. So it could introduce all kinds of problems.
-
@Emad-R said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@Pete-S
no it is reserved for broadcast stuff. not recommended, i think it is called broadcasting IP
Broadcast is the highest number of the subnet, the network address is the lowest.
-
I don't know of any use of the network address, so I can imagine some equipment allowing it. But I wouldn't, it is just asking for trouble.
-
In my DHCP scope (for a /22 subnet), I created several address pools which omit the network and broadcast addresses, so they won't be assigned.
-
@wrx7m said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
In my DHCP scope (for a /22 subnet), I created several address pools which omit the network and broadcast addresses, so they won't be assigned.
Even if they are in scope, those two should never be able to be assigned. It would be a broken DHCP implementation that allowed it regardless. Since hitting the broadcast should cause all the machines to respond, it would wreak havoc with your system if that happened.
How many address pools did you make? There is only one network and broadcast number.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@wrx7m said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
In my DHCP scope (for a /22 subnet), I created several address pools which omit the network and broadcast addresses, so they won't be assigned.
Even if they are in scope, those two should never be able to be assigned. It would be a broken DHCP implementation that allowed it regardless. Since hitting the broadcast should cause all the machines to respond, it would wreak havoc with your system if that happened.
How many address pools did you make? There is only one network and broadcast number.
Like @Pete-S I use a /22. I was referring to what would be a traditional network and broadcast of a /24, of which there are a few. For instance, If I have a 192.168.0.0/22, it would span 192.168.0.0-192.168.3.255. I omit 192.168.0.255, 1.0, 1.255, 2.0, 2.255 and 3.0
-
@Pete-S said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@Emad-R said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@Pete-S
no it is reserved for broadcast stuff. not recommended, i think it is called broadcasting IP
I think you are mistaken it for the last IP address which is the broadcast address. So 192.168.0.255 in this case.
You couldnt let that pass, you have to make me look like idiot.
YOU WANT THE TRUTH, fine i will give it to you. the first IP is reserved for FBI and CIA, here you go
-
@wrx7m said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@scottalanmiller said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@wrx7m said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
In my DHCP scope (for a /22 subnet), I created several address pools which omit the network and broadcast addresses, so they won't be assigned.
Even if they are in scope, those two should never be able to be assigned. It would be a broken DHCP implementation that allowed it regardless. Since hitting the broadcast should cause all the machines to respond, it would wreak havoc with your system if that happened.
How many address pools did you make? There is only one network and broadcast number.
Like @Pete-S I use a /22. I was referring to what would be a traditional network and broadcast of a /24, of which there are a few. For instance, If I have a 192.168.0.0/22, it would span 192.168.0.0-192.168.3.255. I omit 192.168.0.255, 1.0, 1.255, 2.0, 2.255 and 3.0
That is wrong, those are not network or broadcast addresses in that subnet. They are simply network addresses for hosts.
-
@wrx7m said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@scottalanmiller said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@wrx7m said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
In my DHCP scope (for a /22 subnet), I created several address pools which omit the network and broadcast addresses, so they won't be assigned.
Even if they are in scope, those two should never be able to be assigned. It would be a broken DHCP implementation that allowed it regardless. Since hitting the broadcast should cause all the machines to respond, it would wreak havoc with your system if that happened.
How many address pools did you make? There is only one network and broadcast number.
Like @Pete-S I use a /22. I was referring to what would be a traditional network and broadcast of a /24, of which there are a few. For instance, If I have a 192.168.0.0/22, it would span 192.168.0.0-192.168.3.255. I omit 192.168.0.255, 1.0, 1.255, 2.0, 2.255 and 3.0
Yeah, but "traditional" /24s don't exist in there. The numbers you are avoiding are normal host addresses and in no way network or broadcast numbers. Avoiding them makes no sense, you are just losing numbers.
-
@wrx7m said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
Like @Pete-S I use a /22.
You use one, but are treating it like several spanned /24s. That's not how it works. You are thinking like it is the mid-1990s and there are still classes.
-
@JaredBusch said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@wrx7m said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@scottalanmiller said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@wrx7m said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
In my DHCP scope (for a /22 subnet), I created several address pools which omit the network and broadcast addresses, so they won't be assigned.
Even if they are in scope, those two should never be able to be assigned. It would be a broken DHCP implementation that allowed it regardless. Since hitting the broadcast should cause all the machines to respond, it would wreak havoc with your system if that happened.
How many address pools did you make? There is only one network and broadcast number.
Like @Pete-S I use a /22. I was referring to what would be a traditional network and broadcast of a /24, of which there are a few. For instance, If I have a 192.168.0.0/22, it would span 192.168.0.0-192.168.3.255. I omit 192.168.0.255, 1.0, 1.255, 2.0, 2.255 and 3.0
That is wrong, those are not network or broadcast addresses in that subnet. They are simply network addresses for hosts.
Correct. I know that. I saw something a long time ago that said that some devices can't handle those, so I blocked them out. Don't remember where, but it didn't hurt.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@wrx7m said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
Like @Pete-S I use a /22.
You use one, but are treating it like several spanned /24s. That's not how it works. You are thinking like it is the mid-1990s and there are still classes.
I know it isn't how it works. Initially, I said that some devices didn't like them.
-
@wrx7m said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@JaredBusch said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@wrx7m said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@scottalanmiller said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@wrx7m said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
In my DHCP scope (for a /22 subnet), I created several address pools which omit the network and broadcast addresses, so they won't be assigned.
Even if they are in scope, those two should never be able to be assigned. It would be a broken DHCP implementation that allowed it regardless. Since hitting the broadcast should cause all the machines to respond, it would wreak havoc with your system if that happened.
How many address pools did you make? There is only one network and broadcast number.
Like @Pete-S I use a /22. I was referring to what would be a traditional network and broadcast of a /24, of which there are a few. For instance, If I have a 192.168.0.0/22, it would span 192.168.0.0-192.168.3.255. I omit 192.168.0.255, 1.0, 1.255, 2.0, 2.255 and 3.0
That is wrong, those are not network or broadcast addresses in that subnet. They are simply network addresses for hosts.
Correct. I know that. I saw something a long time ago that said that some devices can't handle those, so I blocked them out. Don't remember where, but it didn't hurt.
Maybe in the late 1990s there were still garbage services that weren't IPv4 compatible yet. But that can't possibly be the case today, no one would be able to use those things.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@wrx7m said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@JaredBusch said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@wrx7m said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@scottalanmiller said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
@wrx7m said in Can I use the first IP in a subnet, for instance 192.168.0.0?:
In my DHCP scope (for a /22 subnet), I created several address pools which omit the network and broadcast addresses, so they won't be assigned.
Even if they are in scope, those two should never be able to be assigned. It would be a broken DHCP implementation that allowed it regardless. Since hitting the broadcast should cause all the machines to respond, it would wreak havoc with your system if that happened.
How many address pools did you make? There is only one network and broadcast number.
Like @Pete-S I use a /22. I was referring to what would be a traditional network and broadcast of a /24, of which there are a few. For instance, If I have a 192.168.0.0/22, it would span 192.168.0.0-192.168.3.255. I omit 192.168.0.255, 1.0, 1.255, 2.0, 2.255 and 3.0
That is wrong, those are not network or broadcast addresses in that subnet. They are simply network addresses for hosts.
Correct. I know that. I saw something a long time ago that said that some devices can't handle those, so I blocked them out. Don't remember where, but it didn't hurt.
Maybe in the late 1990s there were still garbage services that weren't IPv4 compatible yet. But that can't possibly be the case today, no one would be able to use those things.
That's good that is no longer a thing.
