Hi all,
Am trying to change a NAT configuration and it doesn't seem to take.
I do a:
no ip nat inside source 192.168.100.20 a.b.c.d
it asks if I want to delete child dependencies and I've gone with no and yes
I do a:
ip nat inside source 172.29.10.23 a.b.c.d
and I get the message:
already
Is it possible to block reverse DNS queries at the router?
If so, I may inadvertently done so, but can't seem to find a setting that
would have blocked.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=55627&t=55627
--
FAQ, list arc
wall, then I have to
> ask - what
> happens if that device is compromised - do you really want some
> hacker to
> then be in the middle of your network?
>
> --
>
> www.chuckslongroad.info
> like my web site?
> take the survey!
>
>
>
> ""CTM CTM&quo
Hello all,
Continuing my quest to unravel that which was left behind, I am now at the
following conclusion:
Europe is on subnet 172.29.30.0
U.S. is on subnet 192.168.100.0
Europe office has a 512k portal to the internet, public IP gateway being
1.2.3.4 (made up of course, is in 217.x.x.x range)
I think if the following situation is explained, it would go a long way to
my sorting out other issues.
Given the config files pasted at the bottom of this message:
NetworkA = 172.29.10.0
NetworkB = 192.168.100.0
NetworkC = 172.29.30.0
RouterA hosts 172.29.10.0 and 192.168.100.0
RouterB host
I have 5 subnets:
172.29.10.x/24 in the U.S.
192.168.100.x/24 in the U.S.
I would like to eliminate the 192.x.x.x subnet as it is mostly redundant,
machines multihomed.
172.29.20.x/24 in Mexico
172.29.30.x/24 in Europe
172.29.40.x/24 in Mexico
Europe office has a 1720 router and E1 connection.
p StaticNAT permit 10
> match ip address StaticNAT
> set ip next-hop 2.2.2.2
> (Note the address is not the address of the loopback.)
>
> To use a basketball analogy - a direct pass won't work because
> a blocker is
> in the way. Instead use a bounce pass.
>
> > -O
I've been trying to optimize communications between two distant routers. So
far I've managed to lock myself out of the far router three times, folks
over there are getting weary of my mistakes ;-)
I have a subnet of 172.29.30.0/24 and a subnet of 172.29.10.0/24, the latter
is physically the same
Hello all,
Have inherited 4 routers with no documentation as to vendors, maintenance
agreements etc. I have established a maintenance agreement is in place for
at least one router and now need to establish for the other boxes. I only
have physical access to one of the routers, the other three are
I have closed the security and done some clean up. I'm investigating the
performance to Mexico but pings have been well today. Coincedence? Probably
but they've never been consistently low as they have been today. Tomorrow I
have some available to pull the suspected trouble connection and I'll log
Thank you, moving to the other subnet allowed me to get back in to the
router.
Ok, now for another crack at it ;-)
Very much appreciated!
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53639&t=53266
--
FAQ, list archives, and sub
Hi,
I removed the "ip http server" from all routers.
I also removed the "ip nat inside" from the first Mexico router.
So far so good.
But when I did a "no ip route 192.168.100.0 255.255.255.0 Serial0/0:0.300" I
immediatly lost connection to the router and am now trying to reach someone
down there
Daniel Cotts wrote:
>
> You have a static NAT translation for 192.168.100.20 on both
> routers. I'd
> suggest removing it from the Mexican router.
>
> You haven't said whether or not you are doing standard or
> extended pings.
> Whether you are pinging from a host or the routers.
> Do a tracerou
Daniel Cotts wrote:
>
> You have a static NAT translation for 192.168.100.20 on both
> routers. I'd
> suggest removing it from the Mexican router.
>
> You haven't said whether or not you are doing standard or
> extended pings.
> Whether you are pinging from a host or the routers.
> Do a tracerou
14 matches
Mail list logo
