Subject: Re: (NAT) Extended IP tests.

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 11:45:21 +0100

As hacks go, that's not bad.

Since we presume there will be far more clients than servers,
how about saying that clients must be in 10/8, and servers
must be in 172.16/12 or 192.168/16 ?

  Brian

John Bartas wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> At 04:12 PM 3/30/99 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >John,
> >
> >What happens if both "linux" and "kermit" happen to have
> >the address 10.0.0.20? This can of course happen when the
> >two ends are in different, uncoordinated enterprise networks.
> 
>         Another idea on this - xNAt could specify certain private subnets for
> hosts which are intended to be reachable from the public net. For example,
> if any host intended to be accessable should be in the 10.254.0.0 net, then
> most server machines would be 10.254.X.X, and most client machines would not.
> 
>         Machines which might want to be both client and sever, such Linux boxes,
> could maintain 2 IPaddresses on their local net - one from each group.
> 
> >
> >    Brian
> >
> -JB-
> 
> #############################################################
>           H
> (==)o(==) H John Bartas - Main Propeller head
>    _I_    H InterNiche Technologies Inc. (408) 257-8014
>   /   \   H 21801 Stevens Creek Blvd. Suite 5
>   -----   H Cupertino, Ca. 95014
>    O O    H [email-masked] (remove foo)
>     "     H <http://www.iniche.com/>www.iniche.com
>   \___/   H
-
To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message.