On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 5:45 PM, David Burgess <apt....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko <evg.yu...@rogers.com> > wrote: > >> I understand double-nat thing and can certainly configure that, >> but the simpler the better, I'd prefer to have public IP (range) on pfSense >> box. > > Best case scenario you get a public IP on pfsense, but worst case you > can turn off NAT in pfsense and just route through to the modem's NAT. >
Double NAT may be the lesser of two evils, the routing implementations in modems I've encountered setup that way leave a lot to be desired - if they support the needed static route at all. I've seen them just drop routes and other bad things. I'm not all that familiar with available modems on PPPoA connections, but many PPPoE modems can do the PPPoE on the modem and passthrough the public IP via DHCP to a specified device behind the modem. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
