Your PiGate IP address?


vince kd7tww
 

Mark

192.168.1.142

How are you able to get this IP address shown in your Tutorial videos? I don't think I can get a 10.10.10.10 ip address on the home router but a 192.xxx.xxx.xxx is doable on the home router. Also, what was the back story on the 10.10.10.10 IP address?? Thank you


--
73, de Vince KD7TWW
In what year did the FCC mandate the 1500 Watt PEP limit for amateur radio station
power output? - Motorola Corp was formally named
"Galvin Manufacturing Corporation" (1928–1947)


Mark Griffith
 

Vince,

I set that up for just my development machine.  It's a little complicated so I don't release the info as I don't want to support all the problems in everyone's home network.  As I said, plug your PiGate into your local network with an Ethernet cable and you'll get a new IP address from your local network.  Then you won't need to sign on to the PiGate WiFi to connect although it will still be there.  If you then unplug from your home network and go into the field, the PiGate WiFi will still work.

the 10.x.x.x network is a special non-routable network that is used by hundreds of businesses around the world.  Your home router will not pass any IP traffic to any addresses there so it makes the PiGate in it's own little IP world.

Mark
KD0QYN


On Tuesday, October 5, 2021, 02:33:50 PM CDT, vince kd7tww <vince@...> wrote:


Mark

192.168.1.142

How are you able to get this IP address shown in your Tutorial videos? I
don't think I can get a 10.10.10.10 ip address on the home router but a
192.xxx.xxx.xxx is doable on the home router. Also, what was the back
story on the 10.10.10.10 IP address?? Thank you


--
73, de Vince KD7TWW
In what year did the FCC mandate the 1500 Watt PEP limit for amateur radio station
power output? - Motorola Corp was formally named
"Galvin Manufacturing Corporation" (1928–1947)







Charles MacDonald VA3CPY
 

the 10.x.x.x network is a special non-routable network that is used by hundreds of businesses around the world.  Your home router will not pass any IP traffic to any addresses there so it makes the PiGate in it's own little IP world.
192.xxx.xxx.xxx is doable on the home router.
10.x.x.x is a bit of an historical anomaly, but these days it is a group of addresses that can be used on a BIG local network.

your 192.x.x.x is likewise set aside as a local network. when you want to talk to a machine outside your network, your router does some translation to use the IP address that your external internet provider allows your router to use.

many historical decisions mean that the 10 network is "harder" or at least more complex to use than the 192 network.



--
Charles MacDonald VA3CPY Stittsville Ontario
cmacd@zeusprune.ca Just Beyond the Fringe
No Microsoft Products were used in sending this e-mail.


Jeff Townsend
 

192.168.x.x is for local networks but there are real routable addresses in the rest of 192.x.x.x.

On Oct 5, 2021, at 10:04 PM, Charles MacDonald VA3CPY <aa508@...> wrote:


the 10.x.x.x network is a special non-routable network that is used by hundreds of businesses around the world.  Your home router will not pass any IP traffic to any addresses there so it makes the PiGate in it's own little IP world.

192.xxx.xxx.xxx is doable on the home router.

10.x.x.x is a bit of an historical anomaly, but these days it is a group of addresses that can be used on a BIG local network.

your 192.x.x.x is likewise set aside as a local network. when you want to talk to a machine outside your network, your router does some translation to use the IP address that your external internet provider allows your router to use.

many historical decisions mean that the 10 network is "harder" or at least more complex to use than the 192 network.



--
Charles MacDonald  VA3CPY               Stittsville Ontario
cmacd@...              Just Beyond the Fringe
No Microsoft Products were used in sending this e-mail.






Jeff Townsend
WB8LYJ





Jeff Palmer
 

I'm going to have to disagree with you on 10.x.x.x being a historical
anomaly OR being harder to use. it's just a /8 network in RFC1918.
There is nothing "special" about it.

If you understand classful OR cidr routing, 10.0.0.0/8 is just as
easy as 192.168.0.0/16

(As an aside, it always make me chuckle when people completely forget
that 172.16.0.0/12 exists in the same RFC)

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 10:04 PM Charles MacDonald VA3CPY <aa508@ncf.ca> wrote:


the 10.x.x.x network is a special non-routable network that is used by
hundreds of businesses around the world. Your home router will not pass
any IP traffic to any addresses there so it makes the PiGate in it's own
little IP world.
192.xxx.xxx.xxx is doable on the home router.
10.x.x.x is a bit of an historical anomaly, but these days it is a group
of addresses that can be used on a BIG local network.

your 192.x.x.x is likewise set aside as a local network. when you want
to talk to a machine outside your network, your router does some
translation to use the IP address that your external internet provider
allows your router to use.

many historical decisions mean that the 10 network is "harder" or at
least more complex to use than the 192 network.



--
Charles MacDonald VA3CPY Stittsville Ontario
cmacd@zeusprune.ca Just Beyond the Fringe
No Microsoft Products were used in sending this e-mail.




--
Jeff Palmer
Palmer IT Consulting, LLC.
https://PalmerIT.net


Mark Griffith
 

Jeff,

There have been, historically, three non-routable IP address ranges of different sizes that were setup expressly for the purpose of filling the need for an IP address range, initially, for companies to use for their internal networks.  Do a network search for non-routable IP addresses to get the full info so I don't have to repeat it here.

Mark
KD0QYN


On Tuesday, October 5, 2021, 10:50:34 PM CDT, Jeff Palmer via groups.io <jeff@...> wrote:


I'm going to have to disagree with  you on 10.x.x.x being a historical
anomaly OR being harder to use.  it's just a /8 network in RFC1918.
There is nothing "special" about it.

If you understand classful OR cidr routing,  10.0.0.0/8 is just as
easy as 192.168.0.0/16

(As an aside,  it always make me chuckle when people completely forget
that 172.16.0.0/12 exists in the same RFC)



On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 10:04 PM Charles MacDonald VA3CPY <aa508@...> wrote:
>
>
> > the 10.x.x.x network is a special non-routable network that is used by
> > hundreds of businesses around the world.  Your home router will not pass
> > any IP traffic to any addresses there so it makes the PiGate in it's own
> > little IP world.
>
> > 192.xxx.xxx.xxx is doable on the home router.
>
> 10.x.x.x is a bit of an historical anomaly, but these days it is a group
> of addresses that can be used on a BIG local network.
>
> your 192.x.x.x is likewise set aside as a local network. when you want
> to talk to a machine outside your network, your router does some
> translation to use the IP address that your external internet provider
> allows your router to use.
>
> many historical decisions mean that the 10 network is "harder" or at
> least more complex to use than the 192 network.
>
>
>
> --
> Charles MacDonald  VA3CPY              Stittsville Ontario
> cmacd@...              Just Beyond the Fringe
> No Microsoft Products were used in sending this e-mail.
>
>
>
>
>


--
Jeff Palmer
Palmer IT Consulting, LLC.
https://PalmerIT.net






Jeff Palmer
 

Mark,

Why would I do a search for the RFC I specifically mentioned, or the 3
routable networks I mentioned in my previous email?
If I mentioned all 3 (AND the RFC that created them), I suspect that
means I'm pretty well aware of them, no?

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:45 AM Mark Griffith via groups.io
<mdgriffith2003=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Jeff,

There have been, historically, three non-routable IP address ranges of different sizes that were setup expressly for the purpose of filling the need for an IP address range, initially, for companies to use for their internal networks. Do a network search for non-routable IP addresses to get the full info so I don't have to repeat it here.

Mark
KD0QYN


On Tuesday, October 5, 2021, 10:50:34 PM CDT, Jeff Palmer via groups.io <jeff=palmerit.net@groups.io> wrote:


I'm going to have to disagree with you on 10.x.x.x being a historical
anomaly OR being harder to use. it's just a /8 network in RFC1918.
There is nothing "special" about it.

If you understand classful OR cidr routing, 10.0.0.0/8 is just as
easy as 192.168.0.0/16

(As an aside, it always make me chuckle when people completely forget
that 172.16.0.0/12 exists in the same RFC)



On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 10:04 PM Charles MacDonald VA3CPY <aa508@ncf.ca> wrote:


the 10.x.x.x network is a special non-routable network that is used by
hundreds of businesses around the world. Your home router will not pass
any IP traffic to any addresses there so it makes the PiGate in it's own
little IP world.
192.xxx.xxx.xxx is doable on the home router.
10.x.x.x is a bit of an historical anomaly, but these days it is a group
of addresses that can be used on a BIG local network.

your 192.x.x.x is likewise set aside as a local network. when you want
to talk to a machine outside your network, your router does some
translation to use the IP address that your external internet provider
allows your router to use.

many historical decisions mean that the 10 network is "harder" or at
least more complex to use than the 192 network.



--
Charles MacDonald VA3CPY Stittsville Ontario
cmacd@zeusprune.ca Just Beyond the Fringe
No Microsoft Products were used in sending this e-mail.





--
Jeff Palmer
Palmer IT Consulting, LLC.
https://PalmerIT.net







--
Jeff Palmer
Palmer IT Consulting, LLC.
https://PalmerIT.net


Mark Griffith
 

Because you seemed to miss the point of these address ranges being non-routable for a very specific reason.

Mark
KD0QYN


On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:41 AM Jeff Palmer via groups.io <jeff=palmerit.net@groups.io> wrote:
Mark,

Why would I do a search for the RFC I specifically mentioned, or the 3
routable networks I mentioned in my previous email?
If I mentioned all 3 (AND the RFC that created them),  I suspect that
means I'm pretty well aware of them, no?

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:45 AM Mark Griffith via groups.io
<mdgriffith2003=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
>
> Jeff,
>
> There have been, historically, three non-routable IP address ranges of different sizes that were setup expressly for the purpose of filling the need for an IP address range, initially, for companies to use for their internal networks.  Do a network search for non-routable IP addresses to get the full info so I don't have to repeat it here.
>
> Mark
> KD0QYN
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 5, 2021, 10:50:34 PM CDT, Jeff Palmer via groups.io <jeff=palmerit.net@groups.io> wrote:
>
>
> I'm going to have to disagree with  you on 10.x.x.x being a historical
> anomaly OR being harder to use.  it's just a /8 network in RFC1918.
> There is nothing "special" about it.
>
> If you understand classful OR cidr routing,  10.0.0.0/8 is just as
> easy as 192.168.0.0/16
>
> (As an aside,  it always make me chuckle when people completely forget
> that 172.16.0.0/12 exists in the same RFC)
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 10:04 PM Charles MacDonald VA3CPY <aa508@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > the 10.x.x.x network is a special non-routable network that is used by
> > > hundreds of businesses around the world.  Your home router will not pass
> > > any IP traffic to any addresses there so it makes the PiGate in it's own
> > > little IP world.
> >
> > > 192.xxx.xxx.xxx is doable on the home router.
> >
> > 10.x.x.x is a bit of an historical anomaly, but these days it is a group
> > of addresses that can be used on a BIG local network.
> >
> > your 192.x.x.x is likewise set aside as a local network. when you want
> > to talk to a machine outside your network, your router does some
> > translation to use the IP address that your external internet provider
> > allows your router to use.
> >
> > many historical decisions mean that the 10 network is "harder" or at
> > least more complex to use than the 192 network.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Charles MacDonald  VA3CPY              Stittsville Ontario
> > cmacd@...              Just Beyond the Fringe
> > No Microsoft Products were used in sending this e-mail.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Jeff Palmer
> Palmer IT Consulting, LLC.
> https://PalmerIT.net
>
>
>
>
>
>



--
Jeff Palmer
Palmer IT Consulting, LLC.
https://PalmerIT.net






Jeff Palmer
 

I literally referenced the RFC *about* private networks, and the 3
subnets. What are you not getting?

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:19 AM Mark Griffith <mdgriffith2013@gmail.com> wrote:

Because you seemed to miss the point of these address ranges being non-routable for a very specific reason.

Mark
KD0QYN


On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:41 AM Jeff Palmer via groups.io <jeff=palmerit.net@groups.io> wrote:

Mark,

Why would I do a search for the RFC I specifically mentioned, or the 3
routable networks I mentioned in my previous email?
If I mentioned all 3 (AND the RFC that created them), I suspect that
means I'm pretty well aware of them, no?

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:45 AM Mark Griffith via groups.io
<mdgriffith2003=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Jeff,

There have been, historically, three non-routable IP address ranges of different sizes that were setup expressly for the purpose of filling the need for an IP address range, initially, for companies to use for their internal networks. Do a network search for non-routable IP addresses to get the full info so I don't have to repeat it here.

Mark
KD0QYN


On Tuesday, October 5, 2021, 10:50:34 PM CDT, Jeff Palmer via groups.io <jeff=palmerit.net@groups.io> wrote:


I'm going to have to disagree with you on 10.x.x.x being a historical
anomaly OR being harder to use. it's just a /8 network in RFC1918.
There is nothing "special" about it.

If you understand classful OR cidr routing, 10.0.0.0/8 is just as
easy as 192.168.0.0/16

(As an aside, it always make me chuckle when people completely forget
that 172.16.0.0/12 exists in the same RFC)



On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 10:04 PM Charles MacDonald VA3CPY <aa508@ncf.ca> wrote:


the 10.x.x.x network is a special non-routable network that is used by
hundreds of businesses around the world. Your home router will not pass
any IP traffic to any addresses there so it makes the PiGate in it's own
little IP world.
192.xxx.xxx.xxx is doable on the home router.
10.x.x.x is a bit of an historical anomaly, but these days it is a group
of addresses that can be used on a BIG local network.

your 192.x.x.x is likewise set aside as a local network. when you want
to talk to a machine outside your network, your router does some
translation to use the IP address that your external internet provider
allows your router to use.

many historical decisions mean that the 10 network is "harder" or at
least more complex to use than the 192 network.



--
Charles MacDonald VA3CPY Stittsville Ontario
cmacd@zeusprune.ca Just Beyond the Fringe
No Microsoft Products were used in sending this e-mail.





--
Jeff Palmer
Palmer IT Consulting, LLC.
https://PalmerIT.net







--
Jeff Palmer
Palmer IT Consulting, LLC.
https://PalmerIT.net




--
Jeff Palmer
Palmer IT Consulting, LLC.
https://PalmerIT.net


Mark Griffith
 

OK, miscommunication.  Forgetaboutit.

Mark
KD0QYN

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021, 09:05:55 AM CDT, Jeff Palmer via groups.io <jeff@...> wrote:


I literally referenced the RFC *about* private networks, and the 3
subnets.  What are you not getting?

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:19 AM Mark Griffith <mdgriffith2013@...> wrote:
>
> Because you seemed to miss the point of these address ranges being non-routable for a very specific reason.
>
> Mark
> KD0QYN
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:41 AM Jeff Palmer via groups.io <jeff=palmerit.net@groups.io> wrote:
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> Why would I do a search for the RFC I specifically mentioned, or the 3
>> routable networks I mentioned in my previous email?
>> If I mentioned all 3 (AND the RFC that created them),  I suspect that
>> means I'm pretty well aware of them, no?
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:45 AM Mark Griffith via groups.io
>> <mdgriffith2003=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
>> >
>> > Jeff,
>> >
>> > There have been, historically, three non-routable IP address ranges of different sizes that were setup expressly for the purpose of filling the need for an IP address range, initially, for companies to use for their internal networks.  Do a network search for non-routable IP addresses to get the full info so I don't have to repeat it here.
>> >
>> > Mark
>> > KD0QYN
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tuesday, October 5, 2021, 10:50:34 PM CDT, Jeff Palmer via groups.io <jeff=palmerit.net@groups.io> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm going to have to disagree with  you on 10.x.x.x being a historical
>> > anomaly OR being harder to use.  it's just a /8 network in RFC1918.
>> > There is nothing "special" about it.
>> >
>> > If you understand classful OR cidr routing,  10.0.0.0/8 is just as
>> > easy as 192.168.0.0/16
>> >
>> > (As an aside,  it always make me chuckle when people completely forget
>> > that 172.16.0.0/12 exists in the same RFC)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 10:04 PM Charles MacDonald VA3CPY <aa508@...> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > the 10.x.x.x network is a special non-routable network that is used by
>> > > > hundreds of businesses around the world.  Your home router will not pass
>> > > > any IP traffic to any addresses there so it makes the PiGate in it's own
>> > > > little IP world.
>> > >
>> > > > 192.xxx.xxx.xxx is doable on the home router.
>> > >
>> > > 10.x.x.x is a bit of an historical anomaly, but these days it is a group
>> > > of addresses that can be used on a BIG local network.
>> > >
>> > > your 192.x.x.x is likewise set aside as a local network. when you want
>> > > to talk to a machine outside your network, your router does some
>> > > translation to use the IP address that your external internet provider
>> > > allows your router to use.
>> > >
>> > > many historical decisions mean that the 10 network is "harder" or at
>> > > least more complex to use than the 192 network.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Charles MacDonald  VA3CPY              Stittsville Ontario
>> > > cmacd@...              Just Beyond the Fringe
>> > > No Microsoft Products were used in sending this e-mail.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jeff Palmer
>> > Palmer IT Consulting, LLC.
>> > https://PalmerIT.net
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Palmer
>> Palmer IT Consulting, LLC.
>> https://PalmerIT.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>



--
Jeff Palmer
Palmer IT Consulting, LLC.
https://PalmerIT.net