[ntp:questions] NTP over redundant peer links, undetected loops

Danny Mayer mayer at ntp.org
Wed Feb 18 12:51:31 UTC 2009


Maarten Wiltink wrote:
> "Dave Hart" <davehart at gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:03463add-146a-457d-9869-9caddf6f8eca at i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 17, 9:01 am, "Maarten Wiltink" <maar... at kittensandcats.net>
>> wrote:
> 
>>> My home network is on 192.168.27/24. I took the number from my
>>> street address. My brother (independently!) picked 53 for his
>>> network, by the same mechanism[0]. We have an OpenVPN tunnel
>>> between those networks. We have no routing problems.
>>>
>>> [0] And when they renumbered his house, he renumbered his
>>> network. Okay, I wouldn't have done that.
>> I've taken the same approach a couple of times at different
>> addresses with 192.168.address.0/24.  I also have a VPN going with
>> my brother. Sadly, his employer requires security software that
>> requires he use 192.168.1.0/24 for his home network to be able to
>> VPN in to work.  As a workaround, I've sometimes subnetted a hotel
>> 192.168.1.0/24 hotel address, claiming 192.168.1.2 and using netmask
>> 192.168.1.252, so that when I VPN all but the first few addresses of
>> my brother's network are visible.
> 
> Scary. You _are_ me. (-:
> 
> (Actually, it was my employer, not his, that had a spurious
> 192.168.0/24 requirement somewhere, so I guess that introduces
> a cross in the connection somewhere.)
> 

This is why I avoid the 192.168.*.* addresses everywhere. Everyone wants
to use them. Only my DMZ uses them.

Danny
> Groetjes,
> Maarten Wiltink



More information about the questions mailing list