Slightly OT - Re: "new" computers and monitors

[Robert Moskowitz <rgm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 05/29/2014 11:21 AM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>> 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
> <snip>
> Yeah, well, my favorite RFC is 1149.... <g>

Then check out 2549.  Dave also published an interoperablity test result 
of 1149!  It was a riot!

But my favorite is 1925.  Particularly rule 6.


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos