ks
fine, no mapping needed. I wonder why they would change that, interesting
though.
-Original Message-
From: EA Louie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 6:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NAT and Telnet [7:20362]
Guy...yes, you're correct -
router behaviour as well as protocol behaviour can help one solve a
LOT of problems
( hint, hint ;- )
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
EA Louie
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 10:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: NAT and Telnet [7:20362
okay... we'll be waiting for your thoughts to be 'collected' ;-) --- more
below
- Original Message -
From: Chuck Larrieu
To: EA Louie ;
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 10:31 AM
Subject: RE: NAT and Telnet [7:20362]
I'll have to think about the solution for a bit, but the reason
-
From: Chuck Larrieu
To: EA Louie ;
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 10:31 AM
Subject: RE: NAT and Telnet [7:20362]
I'll have to think about the solution for a bit, but the reason it
happens
is really quite simple. I posted a problem like this a Friday Folly
or a
Weekend Folly a couple
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: NAT and Telnet [7:20362]
I posted this on the Lab list...but I thought some folks here might enjoy
the
challenge, too. (Apologies to those who are on both for the cross-post)
I was going to post a how to question about NAT, but I figured it out so I
thought I'd share
- Original Message -
From: John Neiberger
To:
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: NAT and Telnet [7:20362]
Might this have something to do with differences in the way NAT treats
TCP vs. ICMP? I haven't worked with NAT much so this is a good brain
teaser
interface unless that 'conduit' is opened using nat inside source
static. I might downgrade to 12.0 tonight to see if that's true.
-e-
- Original Message -
From: Lupi, Guy
To: 'EA Louie' ;
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 2:03 PM
Subject: RE: NAT and Telnet [7:20362]
Did you have
]
Subject: Re: NAT and Telnet [7:20362]
Guy...yes, you're correct - I mapped port 23 on the outside to 23 on a
loopback... and one of my study buddies just called and told me it's a new
'feature' of 12.1 and higher to deny incoming on the outside interface.
Some firewall feature gets enabled that prevents
: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 4:04 PM
Subject: RE: NAT and Telnet [7:20362]
I have routers functioning like this with code below 12.1, and it works
fine, no mapping needed. I wonder why they would change that, interesting
though.
-Original Message-
From: EA Louie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
I posted this on the Lab list...but I thought some folks here might enjoy the
challenge, too. (Apologies to those who are on both for the cross-post)
I was going to post a how to question about NAT, but I figured it out so I
thought I'd share the information with the list and challenge you with
10 matches
Mail list logo
