[ale] next stupid ipchains question

[Wandered Inn]

Joe Knapka wrote:
> 
> I have worked in environments with multiple 192.168.x.x subnets
> and routed packets amongst them, with a Linux router no less.
> Possibly you mean they can't be routed over the Internet, which
> is true, but only by convention, AFAIK.

Well, I've just completed the exercise of changing all my ips from
subnet 192.168.x.x to 172.16.x.x and although it was fun, :)  it did not
fix the problem. :(

> 
> -- Joe
> 
> Jim Kinney wrote:
> >
> > I read somewhere that the class C 192.168.x.x addresses can't be routed by
> > default. The only way to move them around through multiple networks is by
> > masq. So, by dropping the -j MASQ from the forward chain, the entire
> > packet become unroutable.
> >
> > >From the topology sketch, masq from the net_2 is a best bet situation if
> > net_1 is handled by a switch.
> >
> > JimK
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.
> 
> --
> *** Joseph Knapka ***
> In any formula, constants (especially those obtained from handbooks)
> are to be treated as variables.
> --
> To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.

--
Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric at denali.atlnet.com

Microsoft != Innovation
--
To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.