On Sunday, September 14, 2014 10:53:22 PM Steven Santos wrote:
If your corp network uses addresses in the 192.168.0.0 range, how about
using an address in the 10.0.0.0 range?
Most small routers limit users to the 192.168.x.x ranges.
Even if a router allowed use of the 172.16~ or 10~ spaces on
On Sunday, September 14, 2014 10:57:19 PM Derek Martin wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 04:04:12PM -0400, Stephen Adler wrote:
I'm setting up a small network at work behind my own firewall. Typically
I would use a 192.168.1.0/24 network but I'm afraid the IT people at
work have used that for
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Bill Horne b...@horne.net wrote:
If the regular IT staff (who have, of course, left for the day) has set up a
DMZ to accord visitors Internet access, then the process is simple. If not,
well, I just try to remember who's name is on the door.
And whose name is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I am with Derek in this case, but remember that 192.168.n.n, 10.n.n.n
and 172.16 - 172.31 are non-routable meaning that your router SHOULD
never expose these addresses beyond the subnet. So, in the case where
you have to set something up at the last
On Monday, September 15, 2014 09:28:30 AM Jerry Feldman wrote:
I am with Derek in this case, but remember that 192.168.n.n, 10.n.n.n
and 172.16 - 172.31 are non-routable meaning that your router SHOULD
never expose these addresses beyond the subnet. So, in the case where
you have to set
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The reason I suggested password is that it just restricts the ad hoc
user from using the network. This is a short-term requirement for the
OP. And, assuming the WAN port of the router is plugged into the
corporate network. This way the nonroutable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jerry Feldman wrote:
The reason I suggested password is that it just restricts the ad hoc
user from using the network. This is a short-term requirement for the
OP. And, assuming the WAN port of the router is plugged into the
corporate network.
On 9/15/2014 3:48 PM, Bill Horne wrote:
I feel this is a shortcoming of American management in general,
No, not a shortcoming of American management. It's the irrational notion
that pessimism is bad.
and I have never discovered a polite or effective way to
say You're being foolish - please
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 09:17:24AM -0400, Bill Horne wrote:
On Sunday, September 14, 2014 10:57:19 PM Derek Martin wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 04:04:12PM -0400, Stephen Adler wrote:
I'm setting up a small network at work behind my own firewall. Typically
I would use a 192.168.1.0/24
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 09:17:24AM -0400, Bill Horne wrote:
On Sunday, September 14, 2014 10:57:19 PM Derek Martin wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 04:04:12PM -0400, Stephen Adler wrote:.
...
FWIW, this should work,
If youe corp network uses addresses in the 192.168.0.0 range, how about
using an address in the 10.0.0.0 range?
---
Steven Santos
Director
Simply Circus, Inc.
86 Los Angeles Street
Newton, MA 02458
P: 617-527-0667
F: 617-934-1870
E: ste...@simplycircus.com
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:17 PM,
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 04:04:12PM -0400, Stephen Adler wrote:
I'm setting up a small network at work behind my own firewall. Typically
I would use a 192.168.1.0/24 network but I'm afraid the IT people at
work have used that for something in my work LAN environment.
NEVER DO THIS.
Let's be
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 04:04:12PM -0400, Stephen Adler wrote:
Guys,
I'm setting up a small network at work behind my own firewall. Typically
I would use a 192.168.1.0/24 network but I'm afraid the IT people at
work have used that for something in my work LAN environment. Is there a
way of
You could always set up an IPv6 subnet, tunneled via Hurricane Electric or
SixXS. You'd be guaranteed that the subnet the tunnel broker assigns to you
won't conflict with your company's subnets.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Stephen Adler ad...@stephenadler.com
wrote:
Guys,
I'm setting
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 04:04:12PM -0400, Stephen Adler wrote:
Guys,
I'm setting up a small network at work behind my own firewall. Typically
I would use a 192.168.1.0/24 network but I'm afraid the IT people at
work have used that for something in my work LAN environment. Is there a
way of
If you are running your own firewall you could also NAT to the corporate
network if you can not get a specific subnet.
On Sep 10, 2014 4:28 PM, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 04:04:12PM -0400, Stephen Adler wrote:
Guys,
I'm setting up a small network at work
On 9/10/2014 4:04 PM, Stephen Adler wrote:
Guys,
I'm setting up a small network at work behind my own firewall. Typically
I would use a 192.168.1.0/24 network but I'm afraid the IT people at
work have used that for something in my work LAN environment. Is there a
way of probing the work LAN
On 9/10/2014 6:22 PM, Jason Normand wrote:
If you are running your own firewall you could also NAT to the corporate
network if you can not get a specific subnet.
This is the worst possible thing to do from a technical perspective.
Double NAT is bad for a variety of reasons.
The correct
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 06:59:51PM -0400, Bill Horne wrote:
If by Firewall you mean Network Address Translation-enabled
wired-only router, then it's a non issue. You plug the WAN port
into your corporate network and set it for DHCP (or whatever fixed
address your IT guys assigned to the port).
19 matches
Mail list logo
