Speak to B with 10.0.0.x network

[Bill Bean]

Hello,

I just downloaded the Speak to B app.  It fails to find my B2, which is on 10.0.0.33.  When I try to give it the IP manually the app tells me that it is an invalid format and that it must start with 168.192...

[fred.w....@gmail.com]

Hi,

I hope that the final full stop in the address above "10.0.0.33." is not being typed in as the IP address by you, because if it is that would be a problem.

Also  10.0.0.33 is rather a strange IP address to be using.

MOST home Routers will have an IP address range which looks like this xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx where the "x" are numerical digits and the first 2 banks of 3 are "192.168"  - the third bank is usually "0" or "1" and the 4th bank is a number in the range

1 to 255. (For instance my B2's IP address is 192.168.0.37)

What sort of router are you using to connect the B2 to your WiFi?

If you are certain that 10.0.0.33 is correct then try opening a browser window/app and type that in to the address bar - does that connect to the B2's Web UI?

Fred

[Bill Bean]

1.  The final full stop is not part of the IP address.

2.  The address allocation for private IP addresses is 10/8, 172.16/12, and 192.168/16.   See RFC 1918 at faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1918.html.

3.  My LAN is based on a Netgear router and Netgear mesh satellites.

4. The Web UI and the original App work fine.  The problem is only with "Speak to B".

So, private IPs of the form 10.0.0.x meet the RFC specs and are being distributed by major companies.

[Peter Lowham]

Hi Bill,

Using the 10/8 IP address range should not ordinarily be a problem. But the 'Speak to B' app would appear to be locked onto the 192.168/16 range which is the most commonly used one.  'Speak to B' was developed by a third party, so perhaps some feedback can be obtained from there.

Something to be aware of is the Brennan BB1 switches automatically to the 10/8 address range if its 'Hotspot' feature is enabled.  This is where the BB1 acts as its own router which is useful in some situations.  So the 10/8 range might be considered to be reserved. 

I used the 172.16/12 range on my home network for a number of years for work purposes and my network and devices worked fine.  

@Paul; can you throw any light on this query?

Regards,

Peter.

[Bill Bean]

Thanks Peter.  I have used 192/168/16 in the past.  We just moved and 10/8 was the default used by a new router from Netgear.  I saw no reason to override this choice and now it would be a pain to renumber as I have a number of devices that require reserved leases and are entered in my hosts file.  

It seems to me that this is simply a bug in the app.  It ought to work with any IP,  private or not.  I do not know of any standard that requires you to use private IP addresses on your LAN.

Bill

[fred.w....@gmail.com]

I agree with you Bill! Can't see that the app should care WHAT IP no. it is given as long as it is valid and connects to a live Brennan device.

Fred

[Peter Lowham]

Hi Guys,

We're all in agreement here!  The root cause is that the 'Speak to B' app was probably developed on the assumption that 192.168/16 is a defacto standard.  The three address ranges are perfectly legitimate for private use, so the app should work with any one of these.

Let's see if we can get a response on this from Brennan.

Regards,

Peter.

[Bill Bean]

Why should there even be a requirement that the IP be in one of the private ranges?  If you read the rfc, you will find that they discuss the pluses and minuses of using public IPs within a private network.

[fred.w....@gmail.com]

I believe, behind the NAT provided by your Router ie on your LAN, you can set up your DHCP to serve any valid IP range you like or (that the Router will allow) - it is should not be visible from the WAN and therfore should not upset the wider internet.

BUT if the standardisation committees have gone to the bother of assigning certain ranges of IP numbers for certain environments,  I for one, feel that following such standards is a good thing. If ever you had to call an expert in to solve something 

on your LAN, capriciously going "off piste" will only serve to confuse the situation.

Fred

[Bill Bean]

It's not really relevant here but there are reasonable cases where you would want to assign valid public IPs on a LAN.  The rfc that I quoted some messages back lays out these cases.  (For example, a part of your organization might be private at the moment but you have reason to believe that a substantial number of the hosts will require public IPs in the near future.  In that case you would do better to assign public IPs now rather than having to renumber in the near future.)  In any case, I see no reason why the app should restrict the B2 to live only on private addresses.  The programmer who created the app may have been thinking about making the scan simpler but there are other ways to scan all of the hosts on the local network.

[PMB]

Hi All,

Noted and passed on to Martin Brennan.

Paul

Brennan Support.