Reservation of 10.x.x.x Ip adresses

[Stiwi Wondrusch]

Hi all

I have a device where you have to configure its own IP adress. The description says:
IP address restriction: IP addresses 10.0.0.0 to 10.255.255.255 are not supported!

All our internal networks are in this range. RFC 1918 defines them as private.

Is this restriction "legal"?

thx & rgds
Stiwi

[Evert Goor]

Could you tell us what kind of device your talking about.

[Stiwi Wondrusch]

Hi

Its the management port of a storage device.

rgds Stiwi

[Alan_152]

Specifically, what device is this? At the very least, I'd like to know so I can avoid purchasing such a unit in the future....

[Stiwi Wondrusch]

Hi Alan
So you dont see any hard facts we could argue against the vendor that he adds support for 10.x.x.x?
The only solution is "not buying"?
rgds Stiwi

[Alan_152]

Knocking out a class A (and an RFC1918 one at that) is a pretty good reason all by itself. Making the effort to tamper with the 1st address bit by killing a specific portion of the 2nd address bit is pretty stupid. A company reducing its target market to folks that can afford large numbers of "real" addresses is another stupidity.

I guess I could play devil's advocate and say that accommodating a 255.0.0.0 range could play havoc with onboard memory. I've had that happen on a couple of SuSE DHCP boxes I've built. The fix was to reduce the range a notch or two. But I truly doubt in your case that working netmask is much bigger than 255.255.254.o in any case anyhow.

Of course, you could always fake it by sticking a $40 Linksys NAT in front of the management port -- but why bother? Surely, there must be a manufacturer of whatever it is you are trying to use that can accommodate your network.