[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Stupid Bezeq



Well, but the lo network (127.0.0.1) is usually defined with a netmask of
127.255.255.255 which would break your suggestion.

Schlomo

On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Joseph Teichman wrote:

> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Schlomo Schapiro" <schapiro@clerk.pi.huji.ac.il>
> To: "Gilad Ben-Yossef" <gilad@benyossef.com>
> Cc: <linux-il@linux.org.il>
> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 3:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Stupid Bezeq
> 
> 
> > Well, now you know why it is better to pick 192.168.*.* for private
> > networks, even if you get to type more numbers :-)
> 
> If you are that lazy, use 172.16.0.0:)
> 
> 
> 
> =================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send mail to linux-il-request@linux.org.il with
> the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
> echo unsubscribe | mail linux-il-request@linux.org.il
> 

-- 
Schlomo Schapiro
Computation Authority
Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Tel: ++972 / 2 / 65-84404
Fax:             65-27349
email: schapiro@clerk.pi.huji.ac.il
WWW:   http://shum.cc.huji.ac.il/~schapiro


=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to linux-il-request@linux.org.il with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail linux-il-request@linux.org.il