John Clarke wrote:
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 05:30:07 +1100, O Plameras wrote:
NATting is used to route Private Network(RFC1918) <-> Public
Network(Internet).
Not necessarily. NAT is Network Address Translation. Any network.
There's no reason why you can't use NAT in private networks, and in some
situations it makes sense to do so.
Yes, I know NAT.
Do you have a wireless AP on a private network? If so, you're probably
doing exactly what you've just said is silly.
Yes I have wireless and I use Bridging not NATting. Specifically, I use
Bridging
with http://www.shorewall.net.
I like to simplify my network. Why complicate when life is easier with
simple networks.
And so, it's silly to use NATting in this situation.
No it's not.
Yes, it's silly to complicate when you can simplify.
You can solve the original problem with or without NAT,
but without knowing more about the original poster's requirements, you
can't say whether it's better to use NAT or not in this case.
Is it not that the original poster is NATting for the purpose of
connecting to the
internet ?
O Plameras
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
