Short term solution for a family member. One PC is currently configured
with two NICs. One is configured to access the internet, while the other is
configured with an IP address in the 192.168 network range. The PC is used
as a gateway by another family member who is absolutely addicted to email.
The PC with the two NICs will be down for a couple of days--completely
pulled apart. I'm not using my 1601R right now so I thought I'd see if I
could get DHCP and PAT working to translate between the 192.168 network and
the DHCP assigned IP address. A 1601R as you likely know, only has one
Ethernet port. Plug the cable modem into the hub, plug the router into the
hub. I can get outbound from the router to the Internet, but the router
can't act as a gateway for the 192.168 clients because NAT is required.
I'm currently working on another project and don't have much time to
dedicate to this whimsical scenerio. The archives have indicated lots of
people have dabbled with the theory of using NAT over a single interface--so
I was hoping someone actually got it to work. No, I don't know a single
thing about NAT on a Cisco router. At home, we've got a dedicated PC
running Linux to do the trick... Our old 386 that used to be our
firewall/gateway is available but the room's pretty crowded and a 1601R
takes up a lot less space than another PC.
-- Leigh Anne
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Patrick Ramsey
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 8:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NAT using a single interface [7:16902]
well I am not sure to what application this would be usefull for, but if IOS
supported this funtionallity, you would have to create sub interfaces with
different ip addresses on different networks. then set your inside
interface to one sub and the outside interface to the other sub just as you
would on a normal router.
But I have to ask... If you have 2 subnets on the same network, in theory
you would have a lot of machines on each of those subnets trying to talk to
one another. Is this correct? Why not just use that ethernet port as a one
armed router? (I would then assume that you are migrating your network from
one subnet to another) so this would not be a permanent intallation. (as
this is very unefficient)
If this is not the case, please explain your situation... I'm interested in
the need for this scenario.
-Patrick
>>> "Leigh Anne Chisholm" 08/22/01 06:27PM >>>
I've searched the Groupstudy archives... there's been much speculation as
to whether or not this can be done. Has anyone managed to get NAT using a
single Ethernet interface to work?
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=17003&t=16902
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
