On 06/05/18 10:37, druck wrote:
> On 06/05/2018 10:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 06/05/18 09:27, druck wrote:
>>> On 05/05/2018 21:08, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>>> No sir! I intentionally used 192.168.0.n when I was referring to the
>>>> new
>>>> RPi but 168.192.0.ip when referring to IPs of other hosts on the LAN. A
>>>> quick review sees no typos (in the IPs anyway).
>>>
>>> Why are you using a non-private (Sprint) IP range on your LAN?
>>>
>>> ---druck
>> Why not? Unless he wants to talk to Sprint it makes no odds..
>> Or maybe he actually owns that range,
>
> He doesn't, and should not be using it. If you use a non-private IP
> range on a local network, you risk all traffic being exposed externally.

Go away and learn enough about routing on the internet to realise how
foolish a remark that was.
>
>> Anyway, one assumes it was an example
>
> It's what is called a bad example, and unhelpful to anyone interested in
> setting up a working network.
>
> ---druck


--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05