From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnt Karlsen Subject: Re: Unassigned Networks List Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:03:50 +0100 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <20030308130350.01e2c6ed.arnt@c2i.net> References: <000701c2e53d$72cc42b0$026410ac@honor> <1047106127.2050.56.camel@runabout.noc.starken.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1047106127.2050.56.camel@runabout.noc.starken.com> Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org On 08 Mar 2003 00:48:47 -0600, Daniel Wittenberg wrote in message <1047106127.2050.56.camel@runabout.noc.starken.com>: > Just something of interest I ran into the other day with a client. We > moved them to a new building, and setup their new wireless connection, > and for the life of me couldn't ping their provider, but everyone > else. It seems their provider is using 172 and 10.x addresses for > their wireless towers, and gateways to the internet. So if I > traceroute to the client I get public -> public -> private -> private > -> private -> public. It didn't work going out from the client at > first because we drop all reserved addresses on the public NIC of the > firewall, so we couldn't ping the provider. I subsequently got in an > "discussion" with their CTO about RFC 1918 on how it's probably not > good to be using private IP's to route public traffic, at least IMHO. ..such discussions are better taken in public, so the hotshot can show off his alledged competence... ;-) -- ..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.