Subject: Re: Off-topic: Dumb IPNAT question
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Takahiro Kambe <email@example.com>
Date: 06/16/1998 11:07:58
In message <Pine.NEB.3.96.980615185700.3485Afirstname.lastname@example.org>
on Mon, 15 Jun 1998 19:00:38 -0700 (PDT),
Paul Goyette <email@example.com> wrote:
> > map ed1 10.1.0.0/16 -> 240.1.0.1/32 proxy ftp ftp/tcp
> > map ed1 10.1.0.0/16 -> 240.1.0.1/32 portmap tcp 10000:20000
> > map ed1 10.1.0.0/16 -> 240.1.0.0/24
> This could be bad news for some devices, since the 240.x.x.x address
> range falls into the "reserved" Class E (E = Experimental) range, and
> some devices might well discard them.
Oops! I've took carelessly it from /usr/share/examples/ipf/nat.eg.
Should I send-pr?
> You'd be much better off using the address ranges that are officially
> reserved for use in private networks (including those behind NATs):
Off course. It was example and it isn't same as my works.
Takahiro Kambe <firstname.lastname@example.org>