andrzej zaborowski writes ("Re: [Qemu-devel] Making qemu use 10.0.3.x not
10.0.2.x"):
> Right, but this happens so rarely (and there are no obvious symptoms
> when it happens)
The symptoms are generally that the host loses its network connection
to those parts of the outside world, or that it can't reach the guests
at all.
> that it's okay for the user to set up non-user-net
> networking or issue this one line grep command posted in the original
> message. A more useful addition would perhaps be a simple warning from
> qemu when the host is in a network containing 10.0.2.0/8.
I think a warning if a clash is detected is fine.
> Indeed when you google "10.0.2.2 ip" half of the hits relate to
> qemu/kvm/vbox.
... and the other half to people whose setups this range will break !
Gerd Hoffmann writes ("Re: [Qemu-devel] Making qemu use 10.0.3.x not 10.0.2.x"):
> A few years back I've worked for a web company, wrote the border router
> firewall rules, had some rules in there to catch packages with
> rfc1918-private addresses in public network. Watching the statistics
> showed that the 172.16/12 range was _much_ less used than 10/8 and
> 192.168/16.
Exactly.
> I think 10/8 to be used by companies alot. 192.168.$smallnumber.0/24
> seems to be a quite common default for DSL routers and the like.
Indeed.
> Thus picking a random /24 network from 172.16/12 as new default value
> has a pretty good chance to vastly reduce the number of clashes with
> existing setups.
Exactly.
Ian.
