Re: [44net] 192.168.0.2 gateway

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 do accept however that this would cause confusion on a mass scale. It would not be long before we ran into a conflicting route. On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Andrew Ragone (RIT Alumni) <ajr9166(a)rit.edu> wrote: > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) > _______________________________________________ > Shouldn't we be dropping RFC1918 addresses from even being able to show up? > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> wrote: > > > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) > > _______________________________________________ > > I just spotted this entry in the latest encap file: > > route addprivate 44.74.0.128/28 encap 192.168.0.2 > > > > Unless you're doing something highly unusual, setting your > > gateway address in the portal to 192.168.0.2 probably is a > > mistake since it's not reachable from the Internet. > > - Brian > > > > _________________________________________ > > 44Net mailing list > > 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu > > http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net > > >