Not understanding RFC1918 also gets my vote. Don't call them "unroutable", ever. I like it when I hear people say "if you type a net 10 address into a router, it will reject it". What do they think people do with those networks anyway? Call them "private" or "RFC1918" networks/address spaces/ranges. I don't know if it's really a common misconception, but worth underlining to people, especially in these days of IPv4 kinkiness, the expectation of global address uniqueness in the IP model. (Yes, NATs are probably here to stay, but they corrupt the model in a number of ways and hacks result.) Encourage people to use technically precise language. When reporting or discussing problems, at the IP layer at least, always get the answers to these questions: - What is the source IP addresses (including external NAT IP if applicable)? - What is the destination IP address - What is the application being used? - What is the error message or behavior if any? - Did this ever work and, if so, what date and time did it stop working? Tony On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Charles Mills <w3yni1@gmail.com> wrote:
Not understanding RFC1918. Actually got read the riot act by someone because I worked for an organization that used 10.0.0.0/8 and that was "their" network and "they" owned it.
Chuck