On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Ugo Bellavance <[email protected]> wrote:
> Did I fail to provide enough info? I don't understand the question; you make some statements that don't appear logical to me, for example, "we'd use NAT because we don't want the traffic to go through core switches". I don't see how NAT is a logical replacement for a core switch. Next example, "I know NAT is not perfect, but it would keep things on L2". NAT is a L3 function; it is an acronym for "Network Address Translation". If it were L2 then it would more likely be called "Ethernet Address Translation", but that doesn't really make sense and I don't think that's what you're talking about. Perhaps it would help if you included a diagram of what you are trying to accomplish. db _______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
