On 2019-02-24 12:30 a.m., Marc Chamberlin wrote:
This is new territory for me, never had to do anything like this before! So appreciate any and all kind words of advice... Marc...
(who mission is - ...To boldly go where no Marc has gone before!...)
Oh Boy! James is so right. This is all how it used to be when we Greybeards connected back in the 1980s and early 19990s before the commercial dominance and demands of the post-DotComBoom/Crash brought in NAT. James says it was about IPv4 address shortage, and, well, yes, we got to that, but laziness of administration on the part of the IP-ignorant telcos who were just learning to administer networks factored in. They thought of single PC owners who only had one machine and hence only needed one machine, and people like James and myself who owned one of more Class C (at one point I owned a Class B) (and yes, back then, that WAS the terminology) and had their own 56K or T1 feeds were mavericks who knew more about IP networking than their staff did. But as we moved on it came back to having the single IP and NAT became almost universal for 'home-owners' and small systems/locations. I glance at my bookcases and see that many of my books on networking, be they from Cisco on address architectures, O'Reilly on many aspects of networking from VPN, network security, DNS and onwards still think in terms of NAT-less models. If it comes down to it, the original classics by Doug Comer are still valid https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/comer/netbooks.html and I very strongly recommend then. Very readable and great examples. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org