Just to clarify:
When one speaks of Linux they also talk about vi, cron, syslog, X and
whatever else comes with any bulk standard Linux distro and they only call
it Linux.
So, if one speaks of NAT a'la Novell of course they mean Border Manager,
which is the part of Novell responsible for NAT. Still calling it Novell
though. Or does it run on other platfroms?
AND ALSO NO, I am looking for NAT to "translate" several external, life IPs
to internal 192.168..... addresses. Not MASQ.
Thanks for all the info so far, though. IPTABLES looks promissing although I
am not game to go to a dev kernel.
Bernhard
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 17 February 2000 10:36
To: DaZZa
Cc: SLUG user group
Subject: Re: [SLUG] NAT for Linux?
I am aware of Novell Border Manager, but when he said just Novell, I am
going
eh? my first thought was netware, although I am very fimalar with Novell
Border
Manager.
I guess the person in question should have said Novell Border Manager and
not
just Novell.
Oh well he is still looking at ip-masquerading anyways, as my answer gave.
Bye all.. back to work for me :(
Quoting DaZZa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > When has Novell had anything associated with Network Address
> Translation, NAT
> > is basically the masquerading of 192.168 etc ip's over a link to the
> internet
> > that uses a typical internet addressed ip, thus allowing your network
> behind
> > the link to see and use the net, while still only having 1 internet
> ip.
>
> Since about version, oh 4.1
>
> It's called "Border Manager" - and it's a far better, and _much_ faster,
> proxy cache and NAT box than any of the other "mainstream" products like
> Firewall 1 {for NAT} and M$'s Proxy Server, or even Netscape's proxy
> server.
>
> NAT is _NOT_ Masquerading. The two are quite different.
>
> Masquerading is taking requests from an internal address, massaging them
> to add a specific port number into the header, then sending them out as
> if
> they came from the "legal" IP address. Masquerading is suitable if you
> have only one "legal" IP address to go through.
>
> NAT is network address TRANSLATION - in other words, the internal
> address
> is taken and "converted" to a completely different network address. NAT
> is
> much more suitable for situations where you have pools of "legal"
> address,
> but many more machines than addresses. Each machine is given a
> "translated" Ip address for the duration of its current session.
>
> My explaination may not be the clearest, but the two processes are
> completely different in methodology, even if the end result is the same.
>
> > What you should be looking at is ip-masquerading information on
> > www.linux.org.au/LDP/
>
> No. He asked about NAT, not about Masquerading.
>
> And the answer to his question is, I believe, that true NAT is being
> incorporated into the 2.4 kernels.
>
> DaZZa
>
----------------------------------------------------
Email sent via http://webmail.mafnet.com/
...all we need now is a faster internet connection!
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
