On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 07:13, Ray Olszewski wrote: > > Why not? While the RFC standard says that 192.168.0.0/16 is not supposed to > be routed on *public* networks, there is nothing magic about the addresses > that stops routers from trying to route them. You might, for example, have > a private system with individual networks 192.168.1.0/16 and > 192.168.231.0/16, and a router that connects them. Nothing wrong with that, > sine it is not routing the addresses on or to the *public* network. >
Since 192.168.1.0/16 and 192.168.231.0/16 are the same network (192.168.0.0/16), I think that Ray meant to type "192.168.1.0/24" and "192.168.231.0/24". -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Shorewall - iptables made easy Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
