Re: iptables question
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:45:20AM +0100, deloptes wrote:
> 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
>
>
Last time I chime in here.
I understand growth and chaos, believe me. However sometimes we need a
nudge or a kick in the but to clean up. Maybe this is your call.
Simplicity is a beautiful thing my friend.
-H
--
Henning Follmann | hfollmann@itcfollmann.com
Reply to: