[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Chris Buechler <cbuechler at gmail dot com>
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] m0n0wall Routing and NAT Question
 Date:  Thu, 1 Dec 2005 17:19:33 -0500
On 11/30/05, Mark Wass <mark dot wass at market dash analyst dot com> wrote:
>
> Why say it's not a pretty setup? Do you have a better suggestion for
> allowing server#1 to connect to Server#2 and appear to be coming from
> 192.168.22.1? :-)
>

NAT is ugly, no matter when, where, or how you do it.  A better idea
would be straight routing, unless you absolutely can't do that for
some reason.  With NAT, you don't have true unimpeded end to end
connectivity, which will cause problems for many protocols and adds
complexity, which you always want to avoid as much as possible.

glad to see you got it working though.

-Chris