Why is 192.168 not a Call C network?

[pcm81]

In IPv4 spec Class A is 1-126.H.H.H, class B is 128-191.N.H.H and class C is 192.N.N.H where N is a network address octet and H is host. Essentially class A is a /8, class b is /16 and class c is /24 network. For the reserved IP range we have 192.168.0-255.0-255 reserved. Why reserve so many class C networks? If someone needed more than 254 hosts, couldn't they just use a reserved class B or class A IP space and subnet as needed? I am sure there is a good reason, I just don't see it...

 

[JBT]

2015 is a little late to worried about the rules of ipv4.

 

[Red Squirrel]

vlans.

If you are using 192.168 range, and you have several vlans you may want to use 168.1, 168.2 etc... for splitting up the network.

Of course you can use 10.x.x.x for that too but think that one was not originally a private range. (I could be wrong)

 

[drebo]

There's no such thing as classful networks anymore. Subnets are just subnets. Prefix length is all that matters.

RFC 1918 specifies that 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, and 192.168.0.0/16 are to be made available for local unicast addressing. How you use them and carve them up makes absolutely no difference.

 

[MtnMan]

Supernetting

 

[pcm81]

Supernetting

Supernetting would make sense if there was no Class B reserved IP Space. Looks like the designers went for 24, 20 and 16 bit reserved blocks. Just seems weird why not go for 24, 16 and 8 bit blocks within their proper class. Nothing wrong with it, just seems weird and contradictory to then existing standards...