On 11/30/06, O Plameras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 04:08:48 +1100, Michael Fox wrote:
>
>
>> Might be a silly question, but why NAT the 192 -> 10 network, as its
>>
>
> It's not a silly question.
>
>
No, it's not a silly question.
It's definitely not a silly questions, but yours is an... let's call
it an overly simplistic answer.
In this configuration, you have Private Network <-> Private Network.
And so, it's silly to use NATting in this situation.
There are plenty of times when NATting isn't silly in this situation.
As just one example - imagine that the 10.x.x.x network already knows
a 192.168.x.x network - ie, the range of that network overlaps with
the range of your own 192.168.x.x network. NATting would allow your
192.168.x.x network to connect to the 10.x.x.x network without needing
to have any of the networks renumbered.
yes, NATting in this case is not ideal, and often NATting introduces
unwanted complications. That doesn't mean it's always "silly" though.
--
There is nothing more worthy of contempt than a man who quotes himself
- Zhasper, 2004
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
