From: Atif Awan (atifawan@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Jan 28 2001 - 15:59:37 GMT-3
That is why i said controlled ...
>From: Brian Hescock <bhescock@cisco.com>
>Reply-To: Brian Hescock <bhescock@cisco.com>
>To: Atif Awan <atifawan@hotmail.com>
>CC: troy@onenet.net, ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Re: Routing to NAT pool without static
>Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:26:11 -0500 (EST)
>
>Redist connected should be avoided whenever possible (in real world
>use). Think of it as a gun that Cisco has given you and without proper
>use you can blow a hole in your foot (and network). A better solution, as
>others have pointed out, is to just advertise it with your routing
>protocol via the "network" command after you've put the ip address on a
>loopback. No need to redistribute it into your routing protocol.
>
>B.
>
>On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Atif Awan wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Create a loopback with that public addressing space and do a controlled
> > redistribute connected
> >
> >
> > >From: Troy Rader <troy@onenet.net>
> > >Reply-To: Troy Rader <troy@onenet.net>
> > >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > >Subject: Routing to NAT pool without static
> > >Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 20:38:35 -0600 (CST)
> > >
> > >-R1-------R2-------R3-
> > >
> > >R1 is running NAT. Private IP behind R1, public IP for the NAT pool. No
> > >static routes allowed. OSPF is the routing protocol. How do I make R3
> > >aware of the public IP in the NAT pool without a static?
> > >
> > >Hopefully this is not redundant. I searched the archives but found no
> > >answer.
> > >
> > >Thanks.
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:46 GMT-3