I've done this with dst-nat before, but never a netmap. I can help if
you want to try that way.
Cameron
Bill Prince wrote:
OK, I'll play your silly little game. Sending this in plain text even
tho it mucks up the simple formatting.
original msg:
=============================================================
Not sure why this isn't working for me, as I use the netmap quite a
bit in other areas, but for some reason this isn't working today.
I have an old Tranzeo AP that is configured on a private IP
(10.3.101.9), but for historical reasons it has no gateway address
configured (long story, don't ask).
I would like to access it through the nearest MT router (which can
ping the device through ether1).
Where we're at on the network, we go through that MT on ether3 via the
subnet 10.13.100.0/24.
So I created a dedicated address on ether3 at 10.13.100.209, and put
in these NAT rules:
add action=netmap \
chain=srcnat \
comment="srcnat for lost Tranzeo
out-interface=ether3 \
src-address=10.3.101.9 \
to-addresses=10.13.100.209
add action=netmap \
chain=dstnat \
comment="dstnat for lost Tranzeo" \
disabled=no \
dst-address=10.13.100.209 \
in-interface=ether3 \
to-addresses=10.3.101.9
Now when I try to ping 10.13.100.209, I "should" get a response from
that old Tranzeo. Yet I get no response. When I run torch on ether1
(where the Tranzeo is), the outgoing pings do not reach ether1.
So clearly I've got something fuzzed up, but it looks right to me.
_______________________________________________
Mikrotik mailing list
Mikrotik@mail.butchevans.com
http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik
Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik RouterOS
