JP,
here are my thoughts on NAT:
1. If you are going to do static nat for a bunch of machines on you
internal network / DMZ, then I would use manual rules. I have used both the
manual and the automatic translation rules. I have never had the problem
with manual rules working, however occasionally the automatic rules fail /
intermittently work.
2. If you are just doing hide nat for an internal network segment(ie:
hiding 192.168.1.0/24 behind ur real-world address) thne go ahead and use
the automatic translation rules. I have never had a problem doing this.
hope this helps....
-Keith
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keith Brogan / Kago Inc.
Research and Development
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Jean-Pierre Harvey
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 7:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: NAT - Manual or Auto??
Hi all,
Over a period of time I have seen several posts claiming that NAT is better
set up manually in FW-1 rather than using the auto NAT features. I also have
not seen anyone defend the auto NATing. So why is manual NAT so much better?
Or, why is the automatic NATing not as good?
Regards
JP
================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
================================================================================
