[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Steven McCoy <fnjordy at gmail dot com>
 To:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall-dev] Server NAT really needed?
 Date:  Mon, 9 May 2005 17:30:45 +0800
Both 1:1 NAT and Server NAT are performing types of DMZ NAT, one using an 
private IP the other an public IP.

So a reasonable option is to add the subtitles: "Private IP DMZ NAT" and 
"Public IP DMZ NAT".

Netgear and Zyxel use the phrase Multi-NAT: 
http://kbserver.netgear.com/kb_web_files/n101444.asp

Firewall.cx call 1:1 NAT Static-NAT: 
http://www.firewall.cx/nat-static-part1.php and then introduce a different 
type of NAT that m0n0wall doesn't do, called Dynamic-NAT: 
http://www.firewall.cx/nat-dynamic-part1.php This is where the WAN IP is 
taken from a pool of addresses.

Juniper use the phrase Mapped-IP (MIP) : 
http://5xt.support.netscreen.safeharbor.com/knowbase/root/public/ns2028.htm

SonicWall use the term Transparent Mode: 
www.sonicwall.com/support/pdfs/SonicOS_Standard_%2520NAT.pdf<http://www.sonicwall.com/support/pdfs/SonicOS_Standard_%2520NAT.pdf>

-- 
Steve-o