Hello to Everyone.. So today, in some configurations on ROSv7 i thinked about configure ROS with the Network IP, and i’m suprised because the clients of the router is navigated when the router has the network IP… So… I think this cannot happen, because thw network IP is reserverd like broadcast IP, but when i put Broadcast IP in interface, of course, doesn’t have navegation… I used simples configurations on ROSv7.20.4, and tried also in ROS7.19.4… I tested on EVE and in physical router (1100AHx4 Dude Edition). Here the cofigurations bellow:
/interface ethernet
set [ find default-name=ether5 ] disable-running-check=no name=ether10
/ip pool
add name=dhcp_pool0 ranges=10.10.0.1-10.10.0.254
10.10.0.0 and 10.10.0.255 are IP addresses like any other...
but if they're used BY CONVENTION on a network for other purposes, that's another story...
Have you ever tested whether 192.168.9.255 or 192.168.10.0 work normally on a 192.168.0.0/16 network?
You'll find that some things work, others don't.
Those things that assume on software that .0 or .255 have special purposes won't work, while the others work...
this can't work. this is the network address. not allowed as IP address. But I do not understand what your issue actually is or what you try to achieve by this experiment. I also do not understand what "navegation" means in the context.
Yes, i know that, what i mean is: this cannot happen because is reserved IPs, but ok… And… Yes, i know about subnetting, like in a /23 have 512 possible ips, and .0 and 255 can be used, but what i want to say is like you said: it weird, and for some beginners this may be confusing and issues can appear in some nets
I think that the convention is that the first and last address in a subnet (netmask or CIDR) are respectively the network and the broadcast.
I.e. 192.168.1.50/28 is:
IP Address:
192.168.1.50
Network Address:
192.168.1.48
---
---
Usable Host IP Range:
192.168.1.49 - 192.168.1.62
Broadcast Address:
192.168.1.63
Total Number of Hosts:
16
Number of Usable Hosts:
14
The moment you change it to a /24 it becomes:
IP Address:
192.168.1.50
Network Address:
192.168.1.0
Usable Host IP Range:
192.168.1.1 - 192.168.1.254
Broadcast Address:
192.168.1.255
Total Number of Hosts:
256
Number of Usable Hosts:
254
Using the network address as a normal assigned IP - which Mikrotik RoS allows - is likely to create a number of issues, not entirely unlike using VLAN1, RoS allows it, but then a lot of things may go haywire.
Yes, it’s exactly what i want to bring here… This ip what i used is of network, but is possible to use.. And, of course, it will bring problem to work, but i think it is wrong to allow that… And, of course, open a forum about that maybe can bring some opinions about that, i just want to read about opinions
I just wrote it to you, it's just a convention not to use it.
If your provider give you 8 IPs, for example 203.0.113.16/28
following your reasoning you do not use first and last???
So, 203.0.113.16 and 203.0.113.31 are lost...
It is precisely because of this foolish way of thinking that millions of IPv4 addresses are wasted for nothing...
The convention as I wrongly understood it is the that 192.168.1.1 is used to identify the host interface (aka gateway) itself, and the rest of the IPs for users/devices.
Then my small world was crushed when I saw people using 192.168.254 for the same purpose.
Then again when some used odd numbers like 192.168.5./24 to identify the gateway or interface.
So anything is possible, but using 192.168.1.0 which is clearly stated as a network address..........
MT is flexible, and is dangerous for people like me that dont fully understand networking or RoS
I will take rextendeds word for it that 192.168.1.0 can be used for any device on a network, but I aint gonna do it.
o SHOULD NOT
This phrase means that there may exist valid reasons in particular
circumstances when the described behavior is acceptable or even
useful. Even so, the full implications should be understood and
the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior
described with this label.
How should RouterOS distinguish 203.0.113.0/24 or 192.168.0.0/24???
How RouterOS is supposed to know if I'm just routing, or creating a network/broadcast LAN?
It just depends on how I configure everything else...
Special Addresses:
From the Assigned Numbers memo [9]:
"In certain contexts, it is useful to have fixed addresses
with functional significance rather than as identifiers of
specific hosts. When such usage is called for, the address
zero is to be interpreted as meaning "this", as in "this
network". The address of all ones are to be interpreted as
meaning "all", as in "all hosts". For example, the address
128.9.255.255 could be interpreted as meaning all hosts on
the network 128.9. Or, the address 0.0.0.37 could be
interpreted as meaning host 37 on this network."
It is useful to preserve and extend the interpretation of these
special addresses in subnetted networks. This means the values
of all zeros and all ones in the subnet field should not be
assigned to actual (physical) subnets.
In the example above, the 6-bit wide subnet field may have
any value except 0 and 63.
Please note that there is no effect or new restriction on the
addresses of hosts on non-subnetted networks.
The issue is the "in certain contexts" that has been largely interpreted as "everywhere", by many programmers.
How should RouterOS distinguish 203.0.113.0/24 or 192.168.0.0/24???
How RouterOS is supposed to know if I'm just routing, or creating a network/broadcast LAN?
It just depends on how I configure everything else...
Just because 192.168.x.x are familiar for LAN not mean that are just numbers like 193.112.x.x
RouterOS does what it's supposed to do,
if it prevented me from putting 203.0.113.0/24 as the IP on the interface, it would break the routing in favor of a subnetting that I'm not doing...
HI there, my brain already hurts, but in my humble opinion there is no differenc! By the way I implemented the netwatch script method of failure over to pi from adguard and the OP is extremely happy because it meant no change to his current setup other then the few additions. Your technique although sexier, would have meant whole sale changes to his current setup and that was not in the cards....
