On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:01:48 +0200, Hans wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thursday 07 October 2004 17:20, Sysmin Sys73m47ic wrote: > > When you find out what they were trying to do please > > post back. I am very interested to find out what they > > were trying to accomplish. > > Hi, sorry for my late reply. Problem is I only got a messages from > the company's IT (read "can use windows") guy who buggered off > overseas for an undisclosed period and no one else know what he's up > to or what this is for. So I'm in the dark. I am however objecting > to it, because besides the obvious legal concerns, the whole thing is > a bit like using bubblegum to keep a car's engine together. ..more like an aero engine; it's illegal too. > Either ways, to take a shot at the *why* they might like to do that, > bandwidth is expensive here and international bandwidth in short > supply (and depending on your package international bandwidth can be > expensive too). So my thinking is that the company has two branches, > headoffice with a nice leased line, and a smaller office has an > internet connection that has limited international bandwidth. One > windows box is at the smaller office, one is abroad. In that case it > would make sense, because the windows boxen *can* communicate with > each other directly (because they have publicly routable IPs), but > it's not desireable, for financial reasons. > > Assuming this is the reason (and I don't know yet), I would move the > windows box to headoffice, but they obviously have reasons not too. > > Thanks for all the input so far. I have a fair idea of what I'll have > to do, will keep you updated. ..Hans, I owe you an apology for taking you for being a script-kiddie looking for ideas here, reading this thread you can probably see why. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case.
