Sorry. Guess I'm living in the past. Did not realize W2K could do NAT translations.
Is this in all versions?
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sanford Whiteman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tom Cyr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 1:58 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Routing with 2000 Server and Dual NICs
Tom,
Diff with W2K is the embedded support for NAT (on NT this needs
third-party support). OS *can* translate private addresses, but this
is what Tim is struggling to get to.
Sandy
-----
Tried this routing setup with NT and no success. I imagine it's similar in W2K. The
internal addresses won't route on the Internet because they are in the 'private'
address space. You can't send these addresses directly out and expect any returns.
I'm successfully using a three card routing configuration, ALL internal with
192.168.x.x addresses. I've been able to subnet our facility and improve performance
on the individual subnets. One default gateway on the box points to a NAT translation
router, our single point of entry/exit to internet. Works great although I expect
we'll be moving to faster hardware for performance.
By the way, this is working out of the NT Server box, it's not a RRAS router.
Tom
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
