On 05/29/2014 11:21 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > Robert Moskowitz wrote: >> On 05/29/2014 10:39 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: >>> On 05/29/2014 08:34 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us 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.