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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Gilad Ben-Yossef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
> echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
Schlomo Schapiro
Computation Authority
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: ++972 / 2 / 65-84404
Fax: 65-27349
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://shum.cc.huji.ac.il/~schapiro
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
