[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Don Munyak <don dot munyak at gmail dot com>
 To:  Rob Sharp <robertsharp at gmail dot com>
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch, don dot munyak at gmail dot com
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Cisco NAT Overload
 Date:  Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:32:46 -0500
Hey Rob,  Thanks

Router s0 and e0 are both public IP's
s0 64.bb.cc.230 /30
e0 66.bb.cc.33 /28

m0n0wall WAN 66.bb.cc.45 /28
m0n0wall LAN 192.168.1.1 /24

--R--FW--LAN

I will not be doing any NAT on the router, just m0n0wall

Thanks again
-Don


On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:04:50 -0500, Rob Sharp <robertsharp at gmail dot com> wrote:
> Well your basically correct.   You most likely want the mono doing nat
> for you.  You need to make sure that the ethernet interface on your
> router connected to the monowall has public route able address.
> 
> I have seem some situations where the ethernet interface is nat'd
> before the IP address on the T1 interface.  Just make sure thats not
> the case and you have public IP addresses on the router lan interface.
> 
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:02:41 -0500, Don Munyak <don dot munyak at gmail dot com> wrote:
> > Questions about NAT Overload as it applies to CISCO
> >
> > On our boarder router I currently have NAT overload setup using one of
> > the public IP's, not the gateway IP
> >
> > ip nat pool net-192  aaa.bbb.ccc.44 aaa.bbb.ccc.44 netmask 255.255.255.240
> > ip nat inside source list 1 pool net-192 overload
> >
> > By using m0n0wall, am I correct in asuming that I wil not need this rule ?
> > NAT for inside clients will be handled by m0n0wall.
> > If so, this free's up one of my public IP's...right ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > - Don
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> > For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Robert Sharp
> robertsharp at gmail dot com
>