On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 07:13, Ray Olszewski wrote:
>
> Why not? While the RFC standard says that 192.168.0.0/16 is not supposed to
> be routed on *public* networks, there is nothing magic about the addresses
> that stops routers from trying to route them. You might, for example, have
> a private system with individual networks 192.168.1.0/16 and
> 192.168.231.0/16, and a router that connects them. Nothing wrong with that,
> sine it is not routing the addresses on or to the *public* network.
>
Since 192.168.1.0/16 and 192.168.231.0/16 are the same network (192.168.0.0/16), I think that Ray meant to type "192.168.1.0/24" and "192.168.231.0/24".
Oops. Yes, exactly. Thanks, Tom.
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
