lf Of
Karl West
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 11:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Using PAT with STATIC NAT [7:56295]
Ok...so you are saying the PAT will be considered first? ...hmm and I
would have to break up my pool.
MADMAN wrote:
> DON'T inlcude your statics in the pool
Got it thanks!!
MADMAN wrote:
> No that is not what I'm saying. When you define a static you are
> defining a permenant translation for the express purpose of letting
> connections thru initiated from the outside. You don't want to include
> the permenant translation in your dynamic pool.
>
>
No that is not what I'm saying. When you define a static you are
defining a permenant translation for the express purpose of letting
connections thru initiated from the outside. You don't want to include
the permenant translation in your dynamic pool.
If your doing PAT anyway why have a pool,
Ok...so you are saying the PAT will be considered first? ...hmm and I would
have to break
up my pool.
MADMAN wrote:
> DON'T inlcude your statics in the pool!!!
>
> Dave
>
> Karl West wrote:
> >
> > Can someone clear this up for me, I am running PAT on my router along
with
> > Static NAT. I
>
DON'T inlcude your statics in the pool!!!
Dave
Karl West wrote:
>
> Can someone clear this up for me, I am running PAT on my router along with
> Static NAT. I
> have notice that
> the host I am statically NATting is getting picked up by the PAT before the
> Static NAT.
> I am statically Nattin
Can someone clear this up for me, I am running PAT on my router along with
Static NAT. I
have notice that
the host I am statically NATting is getting picked up by the PAT before the
Static NAT.
I am statically Natting a host that is part of the ACL pool for PAT.
I thought that the Static Nat would
6 matches
Mail list logo
