From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HNuXy-00005C-8G for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:30:58 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l24HTej9006988; Sun, 4 Mar 2007 17:29:40 GMT Received: from mail (c-24-245-14-14.hsd1.mn.comcast.net [24.245.14.14]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l24HPNVn002189 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2007 17:25:24 GMT Received: from pascal.spore.ath.cx (pascal.spore.ath.cx [192.168.1.100]) by mail (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C0C76C1C for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2007 11:25:23 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 11:25:23 -0600 From: Dan Farrell To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] A DNS question. Message-ID: <20070304112523.602e272f@pascal.spore.ath.cx> In-Reply-To: <45EA0B4D.2090304@reub.net> References: <011c01c75dc8$a3c0ea80$08200a0a@PowerMoneySex.Lan> <200703040843.58090.paulcol@andor.dropbear.id.au> <45EA0B4D.2090304@reub.net> Organization: Spore, Ltd. X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.4.0 (GTK+ 2.10.6; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: f983598a-50ae-4464-997b-ce8ff7f9cde3 X-Archives-Hash: f84c5b84afea0ebcc472a42824b42192 On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 10:57:01 +1100 Reuben Farrelly wrote: > That way there is no need to ever have hosts resolve to private RFC > 1918 IP addresses from the Internet. in fact, and as already hinted at, there's no way for traffic from the outside world to be routed to a host with a private ip address, so names publicly resolving to private addresses certainly aren't going to work. You should use NAT instead. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list