On 11/29/2011 12:18 PM, David Burgess wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Ugo Bellavance<u...@lubik.ca> wrote:
I know, but we didn't want to do any routing because subnets may change and
overlap in the future, since this is two distinct organizations.
I don't see how NAT fixes that. With or without NAT, pfsense needs to
have an interface on both networks, and host that want to talk to the
other network need a route there. How does NAT simplify your setup?
db
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Another thought.
You could enable port forwarding on on the 192.168.99.4 interface to
pass all desired traffic to 172.30.100.100 from the 192.168.99.0
network. Automatic outbound nat should set itself to NAT traffic coming
from the 172.30.100.0 to look like it is coming from 192.168.99.4 as
long as you have the 192.168.99.4 interface set as the WAN interface.
If that is not the case, you will need to use manual outbound NAT to
configure the 172.30.100.0 network server to NAT from the 192.168.99.4
IP address when sending traffic to the servers on that subnet.
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
