Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
> 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!
What, with QoS?
>
> But my favorite is 1925. Particularly rule 6.
I like 11 (quick, what's the difference between a tuple and a row and a
record? What's the difference in syntax between C and, um, Java, php, etc,
etc? Why is (fill in the latest "hot" web language) better than, say, perl
for dynamic content?).
Oh, and on 3: I've always said that it's a good thing we don't have flying
livestock - horses, pigs, etc, or we'd all have to carry metal umbrellas
to protect ourselves from the results of their last meal....
Um, just had another picture there - flying upper management, and maybe we
do need bumbershoots....
mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
