Is this IP configuration valid?

Question

We have to install some network devices (ip camera, max=30) at one of our client sites, so we asked them to give us an IP range.

The client sends the following details,

IP range:= 192.168.0.264/296
Subnet := 255.255.254.0
Gateway := 192.168.0.1

Is this valid? If yes, any details about this will be very helpful?

After some Googling and head scratching, i came to the following conclusion,
IP range := 192.168.1.8 to 192.168.1.40

Is this correct?

192.168.0.264/296 is not a valid range. Maybe you mean 192.168.0.0/23? I think they mean 192.168.1.10 to 192.168.1.42, but that is a very weird way to write that... — user36472, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:29
That is a very odd way of notating a /23 network, but I suppose it does have the benefit of separating the network bits from the host bits. If only there was a standard (RFC 791) way that the client could have written the address range.... :-) — ErikF, Jan 25, 2018 at 15:12
@Cown: My bad i included x.x.x.0 and x.x.x.255 in my calculations :-( — user82037, Jan 26, 2018 at 14:27

Community · Accepted Answer · 2020-06-17 08:51:33Z

5

IP range:= 192.168.0.264/296

This is nonsense. The dots are in between octets/bytes and 8 bit can only be 2^8-1=255 max.

With

Subnet := 255.255.254.0

Gateway := 192.168.0.1

the IP range of 192.168.0.0/23 is 192.168.0.1 to 192.168.1.254.

CommunityBot

1

answered Jan 25, 2018 at 7:32

Zac67♦

81.6k4 gold badges68 silver badges132 bronze badges

I know that's not the correct way, but i was considering ip address as <network-id>+<host-id>. By the way we have asked the client to clarify.
– user82037
Jan 26, 2018 at 14:36
"ip address as <network-id>+<host-id>" - in principle correct, but you need to add the carry to the next more significant octet. Fortunately, IPv6 uses hexadecimal...
– Zac67 ♦
Jan 26, 2018 at 17:57

Add a comment |

1 Answer 1