2 ms·
I get the idea, but this isn't necessarily useful as advice and toys with definitions. It's ESPN levels of conversation-baiting. Lots of assumptions can be reas
by unethical_ban 29d ago
I get the idea, but this isn't necessarily useful as advice and toys with definitions. It's ESPN levels of conversation-baiting. Lots of assumptions can be reasonably made about residential LANs without being true of enterprise LANs/DMZs.
If a residential LAN is RFC1918 and has no NAT, then it is still a LAN... without internet access.
Then the "A & !A" fallacy of "MAC addresses can’t be changed. MAC addresses can be changed."
Just kind of a mess. Would be more interesting to explore the edge cases rather than throw out half-truths and 0.05% instances.
I like the GNOME 2006 era though.
- aduwah 29d agoRead it as chain of thoughts not as a list
- mitxela 29d agoBoth A and !A can be fallacies if sometimes A. The biggest fallacy here, though, and not stated, is that "LAN" is a meaningful concept.
- unethical_ban 29d agoThe loosest definition might be "isolated network or leaf node of the internet" if one considers a non-natted DMZ to be a lan. If one thinks all the assumptions in the article are bogus, then I agree there's no definition of the term. >99% of the time, being natted and/or having private address space is the definition.