The answer really depends on your Corporate Security Policy. Most security
policies want the "physical" addresses of the boxes hidden, so NAT would be
used. If there is no security policy, then I wouldn't really worry about
using NAT.
Again, this could be one of those corporate decisions or a personal one. It
is really up to you. If it were me implementing this solution, I would use
NAT for sure and most likely private addresses.
Regards,
Don Orlik.
Oscar Rau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> We are implementing a DMZ which will be using public IP addresses. The
> DMZ systems interfacing the PIX interface will have a public IP
> addresses and not a private IP addresses. In this case, can GLOBAL/NAT
> statements be still used to add any valuable security to the DMZ
> systems? Is there any point in using NAT, because we do not have private
>
> IP addresses to the DMZ systems?
>
> Any thoughts/ideas for this solution appreciated.
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Oscar Rau
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> ___________________________________
> UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ---
___________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
