[MLB-WIRELESS] IP address range for Geelong?

[Jason Hecker]

>You're joking, right?!  If we're in RFC 1918 land there are plenty of
>addresses to go around without needing to throw the NAT hack into the mix.
>There's enough pain for all of us without NAT.  :)

Well, assuming that people like me already have a 192.168.x.x network at 
home NATing onto the Internet, what'd be wrong with the wireless box with 
it's 10.x.x.x IP NATing to the 192.168.x.x space?  I know NAT's a pain but 
what can  you do in this instance?

>Think "end-to-end" connectivity.  Do you want to have to use special
>NAT-traversing proxies (that might not exist or even be possible) for
>those weird and wonderful protocols you want to experiment with?

I agree, but I am reluctant to start fuzting with my NATed and firewalled 
home network which is working really well at the moment.  Stupid protocols 
for not allowing NAT.  ;)

Anyway, it's up the the end user how they go about NATing and protecting 
their systems from malicious wireless hackers.


--
To unsubscribe, send mail to minordomo at wireless.org.au with a subject of 'unsubscribe melbwireless'  
Archive at: http://www.wireless.org.au/cgi-bin/minorweb.pl?A=LIST&L=melbwireless
IRC at: au.austnet.org #melb-wireless