Can be a big network? It either is or isn't a big network. Renumbering at any size is the *ideal* solution. And it is a one time thing with any luck. Bear in mind that if you are actually dealing with a large network, it could easily follow that you are dealing with a large number of servers that need to communicate with each other. And you are going to have a large number of static NATs for those servers. So the huge renumbering operation results in a simple network and firewall design, whereas the option of NAT means you don't have to go through the huge renumbering exersize but could end up being left with a hugely complex firewall design. Neither is a particularly attractive choice, but at least one has a specific duration. And it is a problem solved rather than cludged. >>> dark dark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 6/5/2001 07:00:54 am >>> renumbering the networks is not a real solution. Because it can be a very big network and thats a big problem to deal. right. I want to do it without renumbering. any other ideas? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CRESTCo Ltd. The views expressed above are not necessarily those 33 Cannon Street. held by CRESTCo Limited. London EC4M 5SB (UK) +44 (020) 7849 0000 http://www.crestco.co.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
