I found my previous administrator configured the following NAT for my router
(shown below). Our network is in 50.100.X.X and we need to contact a
workstation in 192.168.3.X network (192.168.3.1-192.168.3.100). That's why
he defined the source pool to be from 192.168.3.101 192.168.3.240
Hi Tong,
The second method you use is twice-NAT, both source and destination
addresses are converted. This does not work well on Cisco routers
unless all NAT entries are defined statically. This is sometimes a good
policy anyway where there are only a small number of known connections,
which is
me 172.16.2.2, How the hell the packet know it should
go to serial0/0, as its IP is 192.168.3.1 not 172.16.2.2. Unless, there is
a route added in the target host. But how can expect to add the route entry
in all the hosts.
Q3)I did NAT with checkpoint firewall for my internet access, my firewall
has
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
>
> OK, I understand this, whenever the packets from 10.1.1.X network go out,
> the source IP will all become 172.16.2.2, but what the packet got reply,
the
> destination will
Hi Tong,
I've reread the BCRAN book. The example given of NAT overlap is when
the two real network spaces overlap, not when a pool overlaps with the
real space. I still don't see how this can work.
Marc
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=38932&t=38764
--
5 matches
Mail list logo
