On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:07:03 -0600, Kelly Setzer <Kelly.Setzer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message <20030308140703.GB2652@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 01:03:50PM +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On 08 Mar 2003 00:48:47 -0600, > > Daniel Wittenberg <daniel-wittenberg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message > > <1047106127.2050.56.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > > > firewall, so we couldn't ping the provider. I subsequently got in > > > an"discussion" with their CTO about RFC 1918 on how it's probably > > > not good to be using private IP's to route public traffic, at > > > least IMHO. > > > > ..such discussions are better taken in public, so the hotshot can > > show off his alledged competence... ;-) > > When @home was just getting off the ground, they used to expose 10/8 > addresses. I was talking to a first or second level network engineer, > and he *INSISTED* that 10/8 has been assigned to @home. > > ha ..but he is _right_, even I use it here at _my_ home, and, I even have 192.168/16 and 172.16/12. ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case.
