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> mark