BTW, please cc netdev or myself if you are addressing me. This email was just forwarde by someone else to me - I am not on linux-net. You seem to have trimmed down the CC list. On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 18:02:18, Steve Iribarne wrote: >-> >-> What is so wrong with RFC198 addresses?? >-> >Really RFC1918 you mean... Indeed 1918 >Well if your product is placed behind a nat'd network, MOST if not ALL > nat'd network addresses on the "inside" use the RFC1918 address space. I read this a few times and still didnt get it: Why is it that people using 1918 addresses are affecting you? Does using 127.x help you because you assume _nobody_ else would be using 127.x addresses? I am assuming you want this address for some internal network whereas the external contains some routable addresses? > So I have this working in my products now. I had to do something a bit > different in that I want a "special" 127.xx.xx.xx range to be sent out > on the wire. So here is what I did. [..] Seems you did too much. Look at the 2 liner patch posted by Eran Mann (which should work on 2.4 and 2.6 as well). cheers, jamal - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
