Re: sqlplus wrong?

From: Hans Forbrich <news.hans_at_telus.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:35:15 GMT
Message-ID: <nvzad.11731$Ia5.4352@edtnps89>

Steve wrote:

> Hans Forbrich wrote:

>> Ed Stevens wrote:
>>
>>

>>>I know you're trying to provide full information, but for the sake of
>>>security, you should have masked your IP address.  I was able to paste
>>>your tnsnames entry into my tnsnames file and ...

>>
>>
>> 192.168.x.x are free to be used inside firewalls and should not be
>> public. You could easily have hit any number of sites that use that
>> numbering and have accidently exposed themselves to the big internet.
>>
>> Same for 10.x.x.x and 172.16.x.x-> 172.31.x.x
>>
>> http://www.stanford.edu/group/networking/lnaguide/docs/nat.html
>>
>> /Hans

> ...apart from the fact that they're no-routable addresses?
> 
> 
> Steve

Hmmmm ... I don't quite understand the 'no-routable addresses' comment.

I use 192.168.x.x inside my firewall. I have 2 subnets (netmask 255.255.255.128) and I route between the 192.168.x.0 and the 192.168.x.128 subnets using static routing using a router that sits at 192.168.x.33 and 192.168.x.133. Internet access from both subnets all go through a gateway at 192.168.x.7 ... no issues at all.

My "accidently exposed" comment was plain wrong though, as the address ranges are reserved by RFC and should [could?] not have been assigned on the public net. (Ref RFC #3330)

My point is simply that publishing 192.168.x.x in newsgroups is irrelevant. I doubt what you saw is the OP's network. If you see anything in 192.168.x.x and it's are not on your local network, my understanding is that something is seriously wrong in the Internet.

/Hans Received on Mon Oct 11 2004 - 12:35:15 CDT