> [2] I believe I've already indicated that I plan to come in tomorrow. You could have saved 44 characters by just typing "I plan to come in tomorrow"
=) --- In [email protected], Matthew Juneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sep 12, 2008, at 11:14 AM, Dave Herholz wrote: > > >> And by the way Dave, 192.168.3.6 is free. =) > > > > What do you have as being assigned 192.168.3.5? At this point it > > might be easier to reassign that one since the DVR and two client > > machines have been setup to use 192.168.3.5. > > Something else. =) > > > Matt, are you going to be in Saturday? Maybe we can work on the > > network setup then. I'd also like to make sure we can remote control > > the Windows machine in the front room and open up the ports for the > > DVR. Also if possible, it would be nice if we could show the DVR on > > the instructor machine to demo to the board, but as of now it appears > > that the DVR is unreachable since the lab machines start with > > 192.168.2? > > [1] It's Matthew, not Matt. > [2] I believe I've already indicated that I plan to come in tomorrow. > [3] The "Windows machine in the front room" will eventually be > replaced with a Linux machine. > [4] Regarding "opening up ports" for applications, well, I'd rather > not. Simply put, it's a Bad Idea. > [5] As far as "showing the DVR on the instructor machine," I don't > know exactly what problem you're having, but it shouldn't be network- > related. All the subnets still have open access to each other. > > More in-depth discussion tomorrow I imagine. > > -mej- > :wq! >
