On 2011-11-25 08:55, Ugo Bellavance wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to use pfSense for a proof-of-concept to link two networks
together for a SIP trunk. After discussing with the other network admin,
we concluded that we'd use NAT because we don't want the traffic to go
through core switches, which are the
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Ugo Bellavance u...@lubik.ca wrote:
I attached a diagram of what I would like to achieve.
You can achieve that without NAT. Simply set up pfsense with two
interfaces, addressed 172.30.100.254/24 and 192.168.99.4/24
respectively. Now, depending on whether you
On 2011-11-29 11:53, David Burgess wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Ugo Bellavanceu...@lubik.ca wrote:
I attached a diagram of what I would like to achieve.
You can achieve that without NAT. Simply set up pfsense with two
interfaces, addressed 172.30.100.254/24 and 192.168.99.4/24
On 11/29/2011 11:27 AM, Ugo Bellavance wrote:
On 2011-11-29 10:59, David Burgess wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Ugo Bellavanceu...@lubik.ca 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
On 11/29/2011 12:18 PM, David Burgess wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Ugo Bellavanceu...@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.
Hi,
I'd like to use pfSense for a proof-of-concept to link two networks
together for a SIP trunk. After discussing with the other network
admin, we concluded that we'd use NAT because we don't want the traffic
to go through core switches, which are the only L3 devices available.
I know NAT