A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbanterBanter

Welcome to BroadbanterBanter.

You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today.

Go Back   Home » BroadbanterBanter forum » Newsgroup Discussions » uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) (uk.telecom.broadband) Discussion of broadband services, technology and equipment as provided in the UK. Discussions of specific services based on ADSL, cable modems or other broadband technology are also on-topic. Advertising is not allowed.

Any advantage in using private ranges other than 192.168.x.x in NAT router?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 4th 19, 02:54 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Chris Green
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 208
Default Any advantage in using private ranges other than 192.168.x.x in NAT router?

Is there any advantage to be gained security-wise in using a
'non-standard' private IP range in a NAT router. E.g. either
172.16.x.x or 10.x.x.x. I suspect not but I suppose there might be
some gain in the 'security by obscurity' direction.

.... any other advantages, except the obvious one of bigger sub-nets if
you happen to need them?

--
Chris Green

  #2  
Old February 4th 19, 03:13 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
MissRiaElaine[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 205
Default Any advantage in using private ranges other than 192.168.x.x inNAT router?

On 04/02/2019 14:54, Chris Green wrote:
Is there any advantage to be gained security-wise in using a
'non-standard' private IP range in a NAT router. E.g. either
172.16.x.x or 10.x.x.x. I suspect not but I suppose there might be
some gain in the 'security by obscurity' direction.

.... any other advantages, except the obvious one of bigger sub-nets if
you happen to need them?


I doubt there's any advantage one way or the other. When I was at work
using wireless to connect to CCTV recorders on our vehicle fleet, we
used the 10.x.x.x range, but I suspect the only reason was to get it out
of the way so people wouldn't think of looking there.

--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
  #3  
Old February 4th 19, 06:29 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Woody
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 747
Default Any advantage in using private ranges other than 192.168.x.x inNAT router?

On Mon 04/02/2019 15:13, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 04/02/2019 14:54, Chris Green wrote:
Is there any advantage to be gained security-wise in using a
'non-standard' private IP range in a NAT router.* E.g. either
172.16.x.x or 10.x.x.x.* I suspect not but I suppose there might be
some gain in the 'security by obscurity' direction.

.... any other advantages, except the obvious one of bigger sub-nets if
you happen to need them?


I doubt there's any advantage one way or the other. When I was at work
using wireless to connect to CCTV recorders on our vehicle fleet, we
used the 10.x.x.x range, but I suspect the only reason was to get it out
of the way so people wouldn't think of looking there.

10.x.x.x is nothing about putting the address out of the way. It is a
designated Class A address that is never used in the outside world -
only for internal networks. Being Class A it can provide a huge number
of networks and addresses behind a common NAT wall, many many times more
than using 192.168.x.x which is Class C.

The advantage of using 192.168.a.b where a is not 0, 1, or 2 is that you
can then put fixed addresses into your domestic system behind the NAT
wall so that DHCP is not used for non-visiting equipments. The main
advantage of such is using a fixed address for, say, a networked printed
which otherwise could get a different IP address every time it is
switched on depending which order of items being powered up.


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com
  #4  
Old February 4th 19, 08:26 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Bob Eager[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Any advantage in using private ranges other than 192.168.x.x inNAT router?

On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 19:56:51 +0000, Bob Latham wrote:

In article ,
Woody wrote:

The advantage of using 192.168.a.b where a is not 0, 1, or 2 is that
you can then put fixed addresses into your domestic system behind the
NAT wall so that DHCP is not used for non-visiting equipments. The main
advantage of such is using a fixed address for, say, a networked
printed which otherwise could get a different IP address every time it
is switched on depending which order of items being powered up.


I don't understand this at all.

A device can have a fixed IP address on your own Lan either by using
DHCP reservation on the router or by setting a static IP on the device.
It doesn't to my knowledge make any difference at all if the value of
'a' is 0 or 56. The only difference is how unusual you wish to be which
*may* confuse a hacker a little.

Unless of course, you know something which I've never come across
before.


Exactly. The same argument (if it is an argument) would apply to the
other RFC 1918 ranges. Indeed, you could subnet those any way you wanted
since it's all under your own control.

The only thing one might have to be careful of is picking a different
address from that given to you under carrier grade NAT, which is probably
going to be an RFC 1918 address (it should, of course, be an RFC 6598
address, but probably isn't).
  #5  
Old February 4th 19, 08:36 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
MissRiaElaine[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 205
Default Any advantage in using private ranges other than 192.168.x.x inNAT router?

On 04/02/2019 18:29, Woody wrote:
On Mon 04/02/2019 15:13, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 04/02/2019 14:54, Chris Green wrote:
Is there any advantage to be gained security-wise in using a
'non-standard' private IP range in a NAT router.* E.g. either
172.16.x.x or 10.x.x.x.* I suspect not but I suppose there might be
some gain in the 'security by obscurity' direction.

.... any other advantages, except the obvious one of bigger sub-nets if
you happen to need them?


I doubt there's any advantage one way or the other. When I was at work
using wireless to connect to CCTV recorders on our vehicle fleet, we
used the 10.x.x.x range, but I suspect the only reason was to get it
out of the way so people wouldn't think of looking there.

10.x.x.x is nothing about putting the address out of the way.


My point was that address ranges other than the 192.168.x.x series are
relatively uncommon, so people would not think of looking there.

--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
  #6  
Old February 4th 19, 08:41 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Bob Eager[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Any advantage in using private ranges other than 192.168.x.x inNAT router?

On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 20:36:56 +0000, MissRiaElaine wrote:

On 04/02/2019 18:29, Woody wrote:
On Mon 04/02/2019 15:13, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 04/02/2019 14:54, Chris Green wrote:
Is there any advantage to be gained security-wise in using a
'non-standard' private IP range in a NAT router.* E.g. either
172.16.x.x or 10.x.x.x.* I suspect not but I suppose there might be
some gain in the 'security by obscurity' direction.

.... any other advantages, except the obvious one of bigger sub-nets
if you happen to need them?


I doubt there's any advantage one way or the other. When I was at work
using wireless to connect to CCTV recorders on our vehicle fleet, we
used the 10.x.x.x range, but I suspect the only reason was to get it
out of the way so people wouldn't think of looking there.

10.x.x.x is nothing about putting the address out of the way.


My point was that address ranges other than the 192.168.x.x series are
relatively uncommon, so people would not think of looking there.


That *might* be true of the 172.16.x.x range, but the 10.x.x.x range is
pretty well known. In any case, hackers are surely well informed anough
to try all three.
  #7  
Old February 4th 19, 08:49 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Nick Leverton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Any advantage in using private ranges other than 192.168.x.x inNAT router?

In article ,
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 04/02/2019 18:29, Woody wrote:
On Mon 04/02/2019 15:13, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 04/02/2019 14:54, Chris Green wrote:
Is there any advantage to be gained security-wise in using a
'non-standard' private IP range in a NAT router.* E.g. either
172.16.x.x or 10.x.x.x.* I suspect not but I suppose there might be
some gain in the 'security by obscurity' direction.

.... any other advantages, except the obvious one of bigger sub-nets if
you happen to need them?


I doubt there's any advantage one way or the other. When I was at work
using wireless to connect to CCTV recorders on our vehicle fleet, we
used the 10.x.x.x range, but I suspect the only reason was to get it
out of the way so people wouldn't think of looking there.

10.x.x.x is nothing about putting the address out of the way.


My point was that address ranges other than the 192.168.x.x series are
relatively uncommon, so people would not think of looking there.


If people can even see into a private network, the owner has a serious
problem which can't be solved by messing with IP ranges.

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996
  #8  
Old February 4th 19, 09:02 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Andy Burns[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 417
Default Any advantage in using private ranges other than 192.168.x.x inNAT router?

Bob Eager wrote:

In any case, hackers are surely well informed anough
to try all three.


If they're on your network there's almost certainly a DHCP server
dishing them out the details, otherwise they'll use wireshark to see
what's in use ...

  #9  
Old February 4th 19, 09:16 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
MissRiaElaine[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 205
Default Any advantage in using private ranges other than 192.168.x.x inNAT router?

On 04/02/2019 20:49, Nick Leverton wrote:

If people can even see into a private network, the owner has a serious
problem which can't be solved by messing with IP ranges.


Not a lot you can do about that when you need to communicate wirelessly
with vehicles in the yard.

--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
  #10  
Old February 4th 19, 09:36 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Woody
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 747
Default Any advantage in using private ranges other than 192.168.x.x inNAT router?

On Mon 04/02/2019 19:56, Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Woody wrote:

The advantage of using 192.168.a.b where a is not 0, 1, or 2 is
that you can then put fixed addresses into your domestic system
behind the NAT wall so that DHCP is not used for non-visiting
equipments. The main advantage of such is using a fixed address
for, say, a networked printed which otherwise could get a
different IP address every time it is switched on depending which
order of items being powered up.


I don't understand this at all.

A device can have a fixed IP address on your own Lan either by using
DHCP reservation on the router or by setting a static IP on the
device. It doesn't to my knowledge make any difference at all if the
value of 'a' is 0 or 56. The only difference is how unusual you wish
to be which *may* confuse a hacker a little.

Unless of course, you know something which I've never come across
before.

Please explain further.



Sorry Bob, I realised after I had posted it that I had made a mess of
what I was trying to say.
Two things anyone (with the knowledge) should do is to change the router
SSID as they often give away the make and thus the default
username/password (which you should also change) and secondly to change
the IP range. Whilst it won't stop the real nasty types it will slow
them down a bit. Anyway anyone who would want to crack a domestic system
must be bored stiff.

The other bit about the printer: when you set up a network printer in
Windoze it must have a fixed address. If it doesn't and relies upon DHCP
then it could have a different IP address every time the printer powers
up and Windows won't be able to find it if it has changed from the one
in the printer setup file. It is better to use a fixed address which
could of course be written into the printer config but then there is
always the risk of DHCP having already issued that address unless the
prefixed address is outside the DHCP window. I found it easier to enter
it into the reserved address table in the router - and if you are doing
it for one it makes sense to fix everything. At least you know what
address to enter into your browser if you want to talk to something.

Now someone will correct me no doubt?



--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com
 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cannot logon to router using 192.168.1.1 me uk.comp.home-networking (UK home networking) 3 September 21st 05 09:58 PM
Any benefit by changing 192.168.0.1? Barrie uk.comp.home-networking (UK home networking) 13 March 1st 05 11:03 PM
Wireless subnets 192.168.0 and 192.168.1 Alfie uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 7 October 31st 04 06:49 PM
Can't get WHOIS for 192.168.100.1 David Wood uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 0 October 1st 04 07:14 PM
Can't get WHOIS for 192.168.100.1 will kemp uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 0 October 1st 04 07:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2019 BroadbanterBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.