You will have the same problem whenever you attempt to route between
networks with the same address space.  So it does not make any
difference whether you are using the "Private address space" or a
registered IP address.  And in reality the registered IP address should
only exist between the Internet access router and the firewall you are
left with the "Private address space" and a one in 271 chance that
anytime you connect to someone other than the Internet you will have an
IP address conflict.  The only bright hope is NAT (network address
translation) within the routers, but that of course depends on the maker
of the router.

Of course you are correct. You should stay away from using the example
in any document that has wide spread manual as a much higher percentage
of people will take the easy way out and just key in the example.

Kenneth
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Hornsby [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, August 21, 1998 6:23 AM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      IP Addressing *Twisty little passages all alike*
>
> Another twist to IP address is not to use the range 192.6.1.0-255!
> Yesterday
> we had a funny thing happen, when you dial up to a remote network that
> has
> the same addresses that your local network is using many *strange*
> things
> will happen. The moral of the story is, if you can't/won't get
> registered IP
> addresses don't use the ones out of the manual.
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Mike Hornsby
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 6:01 AM
> Subject: Re: IP Addressing (was VT and IP Tunneling)
>
>
> >bob mcgregor wrote:
> >>
> >> IP Subnet 0 is now possible if you have newer routers.  We use it
> here
> >> for about 8 class  C address and have had no problems what so ever.
> >> We subnet it between 1-126 and 129-254(usable ip's) and it works
> >> great.
> >
> >You can also have variable length subnet masks (VLSM) which are
> >supported in networks running RIPv2, OSPF, and some other protocols.
> >Under this scheme you can have several "large" subnet blocks but
> still
> >reserve some other addresses for use as point-to-point nets.
> Borrowing
> >some cisco output:
> >
> >     Subnet                Hosts            Hosts
> Broadcast
> >     Address               From             To               Address
> >
> >192.168.0.0                192.168.0.1      192.168.0.254
> >192.168.0.255
> >     192.168.0.0           192.168.0.1      192.168.0.62
> >192.168.0.63
> >          192.168.0.0      192.168.0.1      192.168.0.14
> >192.168.0.15
> >          192.168.0.16     192.168.0.17     192.168.0.30
> >192.168.0.31
> >          192.168.0.32     192.168.0.33     192.168.0.46
> >192.168.0.47
> >          192.168.0.48     192.168.0.49     192.168.0.62
> >192.168.0.63
> >     192.168.0.64          192.168.0.65     192.168.0.126
> >192.168.0.127
> >          192.168.0.64     192.168.0.65     192.168.0.78
> >192.168.0.79
> >          192.168.0.80     192.168.0.81     192.168.0.94
> >192.168.0.95
> >          192.168.0.96     192.168.0.97     192.168.0.110
> >192.168.0.111
> >          192.168.0.112    192.168.0.113    192.168.0.126
> >192.168.0.127
> >[snip]
> >You can use the inner-most two 64-address blocks, use the center two
> of
> >the 16-address blocks of the zero-block of 64, and further split the
> >zero-block of 16 to get two 4-host (point-to-point) links.
> >
> >Using router features like cisco's "ip subnet-zero" does indeed allow
> >you to use the zero block (in which case you can steal addresses from
> >the broadcast block).  Even if your routing protocol doesn't do VLSM,
> >you can still get away with this using static routes.
> >
> >Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>