On 05/29/2014 10:39 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 05/29/2014 08:34 AM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> <snip>
>> I was under the impression that the OP actually doesn't want it visible to
>> the world, isn't intending to browse or email via it, but that it was for
>> *only* inside. IF that is the case, he'd have to go into the router and
>> tell it to assign it an internal IP, and to *not* NAT it.
> WIthout some type of NATing (if you have an internal IP) it can not
> touch the Internet .. makes reading email kind of hard :D
> (I did not say direct NATing .. some type of NAT is how things have an
> internal address and talk to things that have a real address somewhere else)
As driver and co-author of RFC1918, our intention was addresses for
systems that had no intention of needing the Internet, just the
Intranet. Jon was extremely generous to give us a whole Class A (Net10)
besides the 16 Bs we asked for. This was before CIDR and some companies
just did not know how to do routing effectively and blew addresses in
the process. It were others that came later that said, 'Oh lookie here
what we can do!'
I DO run some systems here with internal only. No direct access. I
also have a /28 IPv4 allocation and a /48 IPv6 prefix so I can do the
direct access as well as NATing.
And I run my own mail server here and the family Win systems do not have
direct access (web proxying only) so they have email and controlled web
access.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
