[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Mark Wass <mark dot wass at market dash analyst dot com>
 To:  Chris Buechler <cbuechler at gmail dot com>
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] m0n0wall Routing and NAT Question
 Date:  Fri, 02 Dec 2005 08:31:36 +1000
Thanks for the reply Chris

I agree with you but the reason I needed to do Natting is because the 
server I need to connect to (not mine it's a service providers) will 
only accept connections from 1 IP address per customer. Since I have up 
to 4 servers in my network trying to connect to it I needed to present 
only one IP to that external server.

Since I will only need to be making connections to the external server 
(not the other way around) NAT works just fine.

Again thank you for your willingness to help :-)

Mark

Chris Buechler wrote:

>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
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
>
>
>
>  
>