Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #174677

Re: iptables question

Show all headers | View raw

Henning wrote:

> And usually there is no reason for two separate rfc1918 address ranges.
> Pick one matching your address space needs and design subnets.
> There is only one single reason for nat: you have more hosts than routable
> ip addresses. I guess 10.0.0.0 meets even the biggest organizations.

Thank you for the line of argumentation. As usual if something works for 10y
it undergoes a lot of changes. So the reason for not using 10.0.0.0
internally is that it is historically that way. Some years ago the firewall
was connected to the public network directly. The new provider gave me the
modem and it uses automatically 10.0.0.0, which I can not influence. I just
did the DMZ - this was the time I tried to rewrite the firewall rules, but
I found out I need to read again a lot about iptables and more important it
would mean I would need to experiment and jeopardize the network.
The setup is useful in the way that the whole wireless network is outside
the firewall in the 10.0.0.0/24 range. All that I need for operating works
perfectly. Now the only problem is that I can not access anything else on
the 10.0.0.0 network except the modem.

thanks again

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

iptables question deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:20 +0100
  Re: iptables question Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-11-12 23:40 +0100
    Re: iptables question deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 01:30 +0100
      Re: iptables question Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-11-13 10:50 +0100
      Re: iptables question Michael Milliman <michael.e.milliman@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 12:40 +0100
        Re: iptables question deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 16:10 +0100
          Re: iptables question Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-11-13 18:00 +0100
            Re: iptables question deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 20:50 +0100
              Re: iptables question Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-11-13 21:20 +0100
                Re: iptables question deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 21:50 +0100
                Re: iptables question Henning <henning@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-11-13 22:50 +0100
                Re: iptables question Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-11-13 23:30 +0100
                Re: iptables question Henning <henning@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-11-14 00:30 +0100
                Re: iptables question deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 00:50 +0100
                Re: iptables question Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-11-14 13:10 +0100
                Re: iptables question deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 20:20 +0100
                Re: iptables question Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-11-13 23:30 +0100
                Re: iptables question deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 01:00 +0100
                Re: iptables question Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-11-14 23:10 +0100
      Re: iptables question Igor Cicimov <icicimov@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 03:10 +0100
        Re: iptables question deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 08:20 +0100
          Re: iptables question deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 09:10 +0100
    Re: iptables question Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-11-13 10:40 +0100
      Re: iptables question Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-11-13 11:10 +0100
        Re: iptables question Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-11-13 11:40 +0100
          Re: iptables question Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-11-13 13:40 +0100
            Re: iptables question Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-11-13 15:00 +0100
              Re: iptables question Igor Cicimov <icicimov@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 03:00 +0100

csiph-web