[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "C. Falconer" <cfalconer at avonside dot school dot nz>
 To:  'Joe Lagreca' <lagreca at gmail dot com>, 'Monowall List' <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] Nat behind a NAT a bad idea?
 Date:  Mon, 09 Aug 2004 09:12:00 +1200
Why do you need two nats?

How about

ISP----Mono as router-------your box (routed IP, not nat)
                     +------your other box (routed IP, not nat)
                     +------your other other box (routed IP, not nat)
                     +------Mono doing NAT
                                 +-----------Other user #1
                                 +-----------Other user #2
                                 +-----------Other user #n

I don't know if mono can route some IPs and NAT other IPs...  Someone else
can answer that.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Lagreca [mailto:lagreca at gmail dot com] 
Sent: Saturday, 7 August 2004 5:59 a.m.
To: Monowall List
Subject: [m0n0wall] Nat behind a NAT a bad idea?


I have a /29 network with 5 useable external IP addresses.  I want to share
my connection with others.  However I expect more than 5 other people
wanting to share my connection, so I will need some sort of NAT incorporated
into my design.  I am using m0n0wall as my main gateway, and off the shelf
wireless routers at each users location.

While laying out my network, I repeatedly ended up with a NAT behind a NAT
design.  I wasn't sure if that was an acceptable or poor design. I've read
of others doing this (that doesnt necesarily make it
correct) and was wondering what others thought about it.

If I do use it in my design, what sort of problems should I expect and how
can I overcome them?

Joe

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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