First off, you caught a typo. That should have been 198.x.x.5, not 192.x.x.5. Secondly, going back to your first reposte... from your original post, it was not clear that the 198.x.x.x was being routed to you from the ISP. Ideally, you would have a /248 address space from the ISP, so you can assign one to the remote router, one to the local router, one for overloaded NAT, one for the static NAT, and still have 2 addresses let over. I agree the secondary address is something of a cludge. On reflection, I suppose it is not needed; the router *should* respond to the 198.x.x.5 address if there is a static route from the ISP.
Oh, and overload to the interface is the same as overload to a pool of one, which is what we want, correct? When the interface is used (instead of a pool), it simply uses the ip address of the specified interface. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=42385&t=42351 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
