What are two reasons to implement IPv4 private addressing on a network? (Choose two.)
What are two reasons to implement IPv4 private addressing on a network? (Choose two.)
Implementing IPv4 private addressing on a network serves two primary purposes: to enable internal applications to treat the private IPv4 addresses as unique and to conserve global unique IPv4 addresses. Private addressing allows organizations to use non-routable IP addresses internally, facilitating communication within the network without conflict. This also conserves the limited pool of global unique IPv4 addresses, as these private addresses are not publicly routable and can be reused in different private networks.
Private IPv4 addresses weren't created to be a form of protection. It's primary purpose was to enable internal networks to communicate while conserving public IPv4 addresses. A fits this narrative as multiple businesses could share the same private IP addresses and their application would still be able to communicate without interfering with other businesses thus it's unique to their internal applications. E for obvious reasons. D doesn't work because if you have servers that need to be reached from the outside you would have it port forwarded and thus having it exposed to the internet and DoS. Even if you don't have internal services advertised to the internet, attackers can still DoS your gateway because it has a public IP address.
Yea i picked A E as well
But using public IPv4 address would serve the same purpose. The internal applications would still be able to treat them as unique. So A is wrong. THE purpose of private IPv4 addresses is to conserve public IPv4 addresses, this means that any other reason to have private IPv4 addresses is just an additional reason, not what they were intended to be used for. So D is correct just because it's the only other accurate choice. Even though it obviously doesn't prevent DoS attacks, it still provides some level of protection which is the wording used in D.
Sorry man I wrote the comment in a hurry, I meant D & E
it says "external DDOS attack", so I believe D & A are correctt
No, private addressing is not a valid security measure on its own. Although private IP addresses are not routable on the Internet and are used to create isolated internal networks, this does not provide protection against attacks.
"To enable internal applications to treat the private IPv4 addresses as unique" This describes layer 2 functionality, mac address, arp tables. So i think it's wrong.
E is definitely correct, so it is between A and D. A is correct if we assume the network does not have extra public addresses. Without private/public addresses, the nodes cannot route in layer 3. So private address comes into rescue. For D, although private IP addresses have some sort of protection by not being reachable by the internet, DoS can also happen if NAT is used. DoS is also not the major role of private IP addresses but firewalls. So the answer should be A and E.
It's D & E. A is incorrect. It's nonsensical. Let's break it down: "To enable internal applications to treat the private IPv4 addresses as unique " Internal applications treat *all* IPv4 addresses as unique; public or private addressing schemes are irrelevant. Internal applications only care insofar as the IPv4 address is valid and routable; network topology does not matter. Even if you disregarded this, private IPv4 addresses are arguably *less* unique than their public counterparts, simply because multiple organizations can deploy the same addresses internally. D. is correct, because preventing internal hosts from being accessible from an external WAN means they're protected from *external* DOS, i.e. TCP SYN floods, simply because they can't be externally accessed. This is absolutely a reason to implement private addressing schemes. E. is correct for obvious reasons.
In fact, external DOS attacks occur not to the devices to which you have assigned a private IP, but to your servers to which you have assigned a public IP. So it should be AE
These two are the best
The two reasons to implement IPv4 private addressing on a network are B & E: To facilitate renumbering when merging networks. When two networks are merged, it can be difficult to renumber all of the devices on the networks to use the same public IPv4 address space. Using private IPv4 addresses on the two networks before the merge makes it easier to renumber the devices after the merge. The other options are not reasons to implement IPv4 private addressing on a network. Option A: Internal applications will treat the private IPv4 addresses as unique regardless of whether or not they are implemented on the network. Option B: Renumbering when merging networks can be facilitated by using private IPv4 addresses, but it is not the main reason to implement private IPv4 addressing. Option C: Private IPv4 addresses do not expand the routing table on the router. Option D: Private IPv4 addresses do not provide protection from external denial-of-service attacks.
DE is correct
not for protection, to preserve public ip and easier internal network communication.
A. To enable internal applications to treat the private IPv4 addresses as unique: Private addressing allows organizations to use non-routable IP addresses internally, which are not globally unique. This enables internal applications, services, and devices to communicate with each other using unique addresses within the private network without conflicting with globally routable IP addresses. E. To conserve global unique IPv4 addresses: The availability of globally unique IPv4 addresses is limited. By implementing private addressing, organizations can conserve the limited pool of global unique IPv4 addresses. Private addresses are not publicly routable on the Internet, so they can be reused within different private networks without consuming additional global address space. Options B, C, and D are not reasons to implement private addressing on a network:
I select AE. For D, what is the essence of protection while through the gateway and after translation there will still be attacks?
Only A and E are correct
A & E are most correct
Some of the reasons to implement IPv4 private addressing on a network are: To conserve global unique IPv4 addresses : Since there is a limited supply of public IP addresses, private IP addresses provide an entirely separate set of addresses that allow access on a network without taking up a public IP address space. This way, multiple devices in a network can share a single public IP address for communication with the Internet, while using private IP addresses for communication within the network. To facilitate renumbering when merging networks : Private IP addresses are not allocated to any specific organization, and anyone may use these addresses without approval from regional or local Internet registries. This makes it easier to renumber the devices in a network when two or more networks are merged, as there is no need to coordinate with external authorities or update the routing information on the Internet.
I don't think A&E are correct
B and E, according to AI
ChatGPT initially gave me B and E, while Gemini gave me D and E. I asked ChatGPT to reevaluate both answers, and it confirmed that the correct answers are D and E.
allows organizations to merge networks or change service providers without having to renumber all the IP addresses within the network
correct.. To facilitate renumbering when merging networks: Private addressing allows for easier network renumbering when merging networks or making significant changes to the network infrastructure. With private IP addresses, the internal addressing scheme can be modified without impacting the external routing or requiring changes to public IP addresses. To conserve global unique IPv4 addresses: The pool of globally unique IPv4 addresses is limited, and private addressing helps conserve these addresses. By using private IP addresses within an internal network, organizations can allocate unique addresses without consuming globally routable IP addresses. This is especially important as IPv4 addresses become increasingly scarce.