On 2011-11-29 12:18, 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
It simplifies the setup because we don't need to add static routes on
the servers on each side. The server would talk to an IP that is on its
own subnet, that is why I'm saying that we can keep everything on L2
(from the perspective of a server).
Thanks,
Ugo
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
