As far as I can tell this is another one of those Cisco quirks. Unless Cisco plan for the future a mechanism whereby the route to the NAT pool is dynamically advertised, then the subnet mask has no *real* function. IMO while routes to the pool are statically defined and then redist, it remains a mere annoyance. rgds Marc
saleem bilal wrote: > > Dear Paul: > > according to my perception:when we have a pool of addresses hired from > certain operator/internic we configure it to be used statically or through > NAT.we may not need to use all IP addresses for nAT lonely but some of them > can be used for static trans.thats why we describe the start IP abbresses > and end ip Address.NAT function should know the subnet mask coz when a > packet from private addresse comes in it is translated thru NAT with > subnetmask attached .Subnetmask in this case will help the routing of the > packet when it comes back to the oronating system through different > routers.Plus in all IP address scenarios we need to mention IP adress with > mask as router do the AND operation to extract original IP address.It would > not have been possible for any router in the path to extract orinal network > without having subnetmask > > i hope u understand whay i m saying Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=37844&t=37815 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
