Talk:L. Ron Hubbard: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:I'm sure it exists, but I had never hear of it before. Did a google, and nothing turned up using it that seemed to fall within "real" writing, hehe.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 03:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | :I'm sure it exists, but I had never hear of it before. Did a google, and nothing turned up using it that seemed to fall within "real" writing, hehe.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 03:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
::I must quibble from the network engineering, as firewalls and other proxies commonly have inward- and outward-facing interfaces, which, for example, may involve address mapping or tunnel termination between the public Internet and the...yes...intranet. In such environments, it is quite common to have an internal and an external Domain Name System server. On the outside, the name of an inside server resolves to the outside interface of the firewall. On the inside, the name resolves to the actual address, which may be in address space that is not routable on the public Internet. If an inside host asks for the address of citizendium.org, it will get the address of the inside interface of the firewall, not 64.202.167.122. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 04:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | ::I must quibble from the network engineering, as firewalls and other proxies commonly have inward- and outward-facing interfaces, which, for example, may involve address mapping or tunnel termination between the public Internet and the...yes...intranet. In such environments, it is quite common to have an internal and an external Domain Name System server. On the outside, the name of an inside server resolves to the outside interface of the firewall. On the inside, the name resolves to the actual address, which may be in address space that is not routable on the public Internet. If an inside host asks for the address of citizendium.org, it will get the address of the inside interface of the firewall, not 64.202.167.122. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 04:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::Now that '''that''' has been cleared up to everyone's satisfaction.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 15:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Remember, you were the one that asked about ceremonial flag-raising on flagships ;-* Perhaps, elsewhere, there is a need for "reassurance" that could use clarifications beside my own. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 15:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:29, 5 January 2009
Internally-facing
One often talks about an 'internally-facing' website or service, as in a website that is only available inside a company, as distinct from the 'externally-facing' site. I tend to use this construction as I always found all the 'intranet', 'extranet' stuff to be horrifyingly ugly buzzwords. It seemed appropriate, but the rewrite is an improvement. --Tom Morris 03:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure it exists, but I had never hear of it before. Did a google, and nothing turned up using it that seemed to fall within "real" writing, hehe.... Hayford Peirce 03:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I must quibble from the network engineering, as firewalls and other proxies commonly have inward- and outward-facing interfaces, which, for example, may involve address mapping or tunnel termination between the public Internet and the...yes...intranet. In such environments, it is quite common to have an internal and an external Domain Name System server. On the outside, the name of an inside server resolves to the outside interface of the firewall. On the inside, the name resolves to the actual address, which may be in address space that is not routable on the public Internet. If an inside host asks for the address of citizendium.org, it will get the address of the inside interface of the firewall, not 64.202.167.122. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Now that that has been cleared up to everyone's satisfaction.... Hayford Peirce 15:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Remember, you were the one that asked about ceremonial flag-raising on flagships ;-* Perhaps, elsewhere, there is a need for "reassurance" that could use clarifications beside my own. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)