Sorry I wasn't clear. I was asking about the validity of
the following:
Anders Dinsen wrote:
> 
> You have forgot IPNAT address translation. The 192.168.* networks are
> never routed by ordinary routers (like the 10.* network and the
> 172.something.* network).
> 

What I found confusing about this statement was its reference to
the requirement to use NAT. I thought such networks would route
fine unless you want to connect them to the internet and then you
would need to use NAT on the boundry router to the Internet.

The original messaage implied you always had to use NAT. I wanted to
clarify that.

Christoph Badura wrote:
> 
> sean.witham@asa.co.uk (Sean Witham) writes:
> >So how do you configure the machine to enable routing for 192.168.* nets
> >without NAT ?
> 
> Just like any other nets with normal routing table entries.
>