Robert Moskowitz wrote: > > 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! 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