On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 05:48:39PM -0500, Proc Meminfo wrote:
> Well, this quesion only partially pertains to qmail. Can I run qmail,
> bind, and apache from behind a router and still use them as though they
> still had a world readable ip address? (as opposed to 10.x.x.x or 196.x.x.x
> as they are now)
Putting devices 'behind' a router in no way implies the use of NAT or
RFC1918 private addressing. Presuming that you meant, "Can I put qmail,
bind, and apache behind a NAT device and still use them as though they
had non-private IP addresses?", the answer is: It depends on your NAT
device, and your configuration of the services themselves. I have
deployed qmail in a NAT environment (when forced to), and it did work,
as did Apache. I have never deployed BIND behind a NAT, for the purposes
of a publicly accessible authoritative DNS -- I don't even like to
imagine why or how one might do that. As a cache, it functions just fine
(although I prefer djbdns' dnscache).
(BTW, 196.x.x.x is not an RFC1918 address range. Nor is 192.x.x.x, which
may have been what you meant...)
--
Greg White
