[fw-wiz] the infamous "static" versus "nat"
- From: Vahid Pazirandeh <vpaziran@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 11:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Hi All. Great mail list btw, thanks to everyones input.
Two basic questions.
1. I've heard the convention of using "static" for low-to-high NATing and
"nat/global" for high-to-low. Why?
2. Would someone explain the underlying differences in these two commands? Do
they achieve the same thing? Assume net1 = 10.1.1.0/24, net2 = 10.2.2.0/24.
A. static (net1, net2) 10.1.1.0 10.1.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0
B. static (net2, net1) 10.2.2.0 10.2.2.0 netmask 255.255.255.0
Cheers!
=============================================
"Make it better before you make it faster."
=============================================
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- Follow-Ups:
- RE: [fw-wiz] the infamous "static" versus "nat"
- From: Bruce Smith
- Re: [fw-wiz] the infamous "static" versus "nat"
- From: Avishai Wool
- RE: [fw-wiz] the infamous "static" versus "nat"
- Prev by Date: [fw-wiz] PIX 501 outgoing SMTP problem - (reset-o)
- Next by Date: [fw-wiz] LayerOne 2006 - Finalized Speaker Line-Up Announced
- Previous by thread: [fw-wiz] PIX 501 outgoing SMTP problem - (reset-o)
- Next by thread: Re: [fw-wiz] the infamous "static" versus "nat"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
