The real issue with NAT today is ALG processing and scale.
My motto is if you are not going to sign up for full support in hardware
on a box that can scale to 1+ Mpps don't bother half baking it.
I deal with a customer about once per week where they tried something
like this.
The ASR1k (no I don't work for that BU) has it right. They do it all in
the FP (translation setup, ALG, etc.) with no punts.
That's why the 6k doesn't scale even though it "inherited" NAT from the
code base.
Rodney
Doug McIntyre wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 01:31:54PM -0400, Dan Benson wrote:
I have a 4948 that I was hoping to upgrade a few systems with but I am dead
in the water as it seems it does not support NAT.
According to the NAT matrix:
http://supportwiki.cisco.com/ViewWiki/index.php/Network_Address_Translation_Catalyst_Switch_Support_Matrix
This matrix seems very outdated so it would explain why the 4900 product
line is not listed.
If you notice, the *only* products listed there that supports it is
the Cat6500.
The Cat 5k RSM was a seperate bolt-on router on a blade that slid into
the chassis, and wasn't the switch engine at all. Anyway that stuff is
old and dead (and was slow).
So, don't go searching for switches that support NAT, the Cat6500 is it.
Cisco leaves NAT to firewalls and routers, not switches.
FWIW: The 4948 is still very current hardware.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
