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@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@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@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net