From owner-freebsd-chat  Thu Aug 10 21:21:33 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp.nwlink.com (smtp.nwlink.com [209.20.130.57])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F63C37C000
	for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 21:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jcwells@nwlink.com)
Received: from utah (jcwells@utah.nwlink.com [209.20.130.41])
	by smtp.nwlink.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id VAA22955;
	Thu, 10 Aug 2000 21:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 21:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jason C. Wells" <jcwells@nwlink.com>
X-Sender: jcwells@utah
To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
Cc: "Dale E. Chulhan" <dchulhan@uwi.tt>,
	My List <TheTechies@onelist.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: RE: Non-standard internal addressing
In-Reply-To: <NCBBLIEPOCNJOAEKBEAKAEOPKCAA.davids@webmaster.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.1000810213032.21955B-100000@utah>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

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.

Thank you,
Jason C. Wells



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message