6 Feb
2017
6 Feb
'17
3:05 p.m.
Subject:
Re: [44net] 192.168.0.2 gateway
From:
Mark Phillips <g7ltt(a)g7ltt.com>
Date:
02/06/2017 02:34 PM
To:
AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
I would say "no".
Y'see, we don't know what kind of network things are riding over. the
network in question could be (for example) a mesh install configured
similar to that of the local cable company. The users get real addresses
but the infrastructure does not.
I think precisely this is the reason why such addresses should be rejected:
The user may have the wrong assumption that the address to be entered here is
the address of the system terminating the tunnel, while in reality it has to be the
internet-visible address that supposedly is NATted to the tunnel gateway.
So, what happens in the local infrastructure does not matter.
Rob