Date: 13 Aug 2000 16:13:09 +0200 From: Juergen Nickelsen <jnickelsen@acm.org> To: "Jason C. Wells" <jcwells@nwlink.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Non-standard internal addressing Message-ID: <x7ya21jll6.fsf@goting.jn.berlin.snafu.de> In-Reply-To: "Jason C. Wells"'s message of "Thu, 10 Aug 2000 21:33:41 -0700 (PDT)" References: <Pine.SOL.3.96.1000810213032.21955B-100000@utah>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Jason C. Wells" <jcwells@nwlink.com> writes: > On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, David Schwartz wrote: > > > Surprise, surprise -- our new largest customer couldn't > > access any of our protected servers. > > Sorry to slide sidewise into this discussion. > > Do you mean to tell me that one private network that was connected > to the real internet could not talk to another private network > that was connected to the real internet? > > I was kind of taken back on this. Doesn't NAT handle all the BS in > between no matter what? I am curious to know the caveats here if > you can spare the time. I understand that David meant that his employer used the same addresses on the internal (of the NAT) network as the customer on the Internet. The outside addresses are (usually) not changed by the NAT, so it is impossible for the customer to reach the other's internal network. Of course there are several ways to get around this, even if you don't want to change the addresses on the internal network, like putting the server into a border network with real addresses etc. -- Juergen Nickelsen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?x7ya21jll6.fsf>