Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 03:31:13 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Nowlin <mike@argos.org> To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu Cc: freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rc.firewall by default does not allow nat of private internal addresses? Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010310323050.18954-100000@jason.argos.org> In-Reply-To: <20001031000521.E75251@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Crist J . Clark wrote:
> a bunch of other nets including 65.0.0.0-95.255.255.255. Unfortunately,
> although those blocks _were_ IANA reserved when she made her slides a
> few months ago, the 65/8 and 66/8 blocks have been allocated for use
I must chuckle a bit.... (Quiet "chort, snort, gaffaw.") These are the
some of the same guys saying that "we're running out of v4 addressing
space!".... 65/8 - 95/8... 520,093,696 addresses... :)
(I AM in favor of switching things to IPv6 right now, screw whoever's not
ready... We'll work out the problems en route. :) )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Understated/funny man-page sentence of the current time period:
From route(4) on FreeBSD-3.4, DESCRIPTION section:
"FreeBSD provides some packet routing facilities."
...duh.......
Mike Nowlin, N8NVW mike@argos.org http://www.viewsnet.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.21.0010310323050.18954-100000>