On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 04:08:48 +1100, Michael Fox wrote:
> Might be a silly question, but why NAT the 192 -> 10 network, as its
It's not a silly question.
> very likely a device is already doing on the 10 network to the
> internet. Basically why would you want to double NAT, maybe we should
> just setup some sort of route to get this traffic out to the net via
> the nat device on the 10 network?
You could do it with routing, but all devices on eth1 (10.x) would need
to have a route to the 192.x network. Using NAT means that nothing on
eth1 needs to know about the 192.x network (they don't even need to know
it exists). Of course, that may be a bad thing -- you might not want
192.x to get to any hosts on 10.x -- but it's not my network so I don't
know that :-)
Cheers,
John
--
> Is someone piping me through sed without my knowledge?
No, they're using your request as a command line for teco, with the
error message as the input file.
-- Joe Zeff in reply to Malcolm Ray
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
