gpg: failed to create temporary file '/var/lib/lurker/.#lk0x58320100.hantslug.org.uk.31278': Permission denied
gpg: keyblock resource '/var/lib/lurker/pubring.gpg': Permission denied
gpg: Signature made Tue Jan 31 00:33:20 2012 GMT
gpg: using DSA key 2099B64CBF15490B
gpg: Can't check signature: No public key
Hello,
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 08:44:15PM +0000, Michael James Daffin wrote:
> Would it not just be easier to give the computers the 158... addresses (via
> dhcp or staticly)?
Very common to have to do NAT like this when communicating between
two networks which use the same ranges of RFC1918 addresses
themselves.
e.g. two unrelated companies use 192.168.12.0/24 internally, then
one company buys the other and wants to merge network. Machines
can't talk to each other, don't want to renumber the lot. So NAT
them both and talk to different addresses.
Or you have to VPN into a remote network and use 192.168.12.34 but
you already use 192.168.12.0/24 on your own network.
It is horrible. But it works. And you'll see it more and more.
Short story is that no you can't always use whatever IP addresses
you like when you're trying to inter-operate with existing networks
that couldn't use globally unique addresses due to either address
starvation or debatable belief that using private IPs is more
secure.
Roll on IPv6. :)
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
