XPost: alt.os.linux.ubuntu, alt.os.linux.mageia   
   From: unruh@invalid.ca   
      
   On 2024-04-04, Bud Frede  wrote:   
   > Marco Moock  writes:   
   >   
   >> On 02.04.2024 um 22:16 Uhr William Unruh wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> ?? 192.168.x.x is non-routable.   
   >>   
   >> It is routable, but won't be routed on the internet.   
   >> You can of course route it through a tunnel like here.   
   >   
   > I always say that the RFC 1918 addresses are "not normally publicly   
   > routed." :-)   
   >   
   > As you say, they definitely _are_ routable, or a whole lot of home and   
   > corporate networks would not be functional.   
      
   The key word is "publicly". Ie, once you get away from directly attached   
   networks (or internal routers you have specially set up within your   
   organization) and some outside router needs to be involved to get the   
   packet from here to there, then that router has no idea which of the   
   millions of networks with 192.168.  to send the packet to.   
   In the case in question, there are two networks with the same 192.168.   
   network addresses. As mentioned the locally attached network should get   
   the nod. The claim is that it is not. Of course this is going by tun to   
   remote vpn. So if the local 192.168. addresses are being set up so that   
   those packets still get delivered through tun, then the "localy attached   
   network" could well be the remote one. Answer, tell your local machine   
   to deliver all 192.168 stuff not to tun but to a local router which   
   knows about your local 192.168.   
      
   >   
   > I saw a video not too long ago that pointed out that the use of these   
   > addresses and NAT was made widespread by the Cisco PIX. It was a pretty   
   > interesting look back at something new that now seems commonplace and   
   > ordinary.   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)