From: Peng Zheng (zpnist@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Aug 26 2002 - 19:48:14 GMT-3
I have some question about NAT-on-stick.
For second case, why
ip route 100.100.100.0 255.255.255.0 1.1.1.3
I think it should be
ip route 100.100.100.0 255.255.255.0 1.1.1.2
and
ip route 200.200.200.0 255.255.255.0 1.1.1.2
and
access-list 101 permit ip host 200.200.200.1 host
20.20.20.1
should be added.
Is it right?
If not, please tell me why.
Thank you for help.
Best Wishes,
Peng Zheng
--- Phil <ciscostudent1@yahoo.com.br> wrote:
> David,
> I believe NAT on a stick would solve this, take a
> look:
>
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/556/nat-on-stick.html
> Phil
>
> "Voss, David" <dvoss@heidrick.com> escreveu: Here
> is a NAT Scenario that I cannot find a solution for,
> but I believe
> there must be one:
>
> The Goal: Traffic destined for an IP address must be
> redirected to a
> different one.
> Example: Client pings 172.20.20.25, this traffic is
> redirected to
> 172.20.50.25 without the user knowing, and a reply
> is returned.
>
> The Problem: What if your router is running the
> client (inside) subnet on
> the same interface as the server (outside)
> interface?
>
> interface FastEthernet0/1
> ip address 172.20.20.20 255.255.255.0 secondary
> ip address 172.20.50.20 255.255.255.0
> no ip directed-broadcast
> no keepalive
> full-duplex
> end
>
> How do you apply ip nat (inside/outside)?
>
> ip nat inside (where?)
> ip nat outside (where?)
> ip nat inside source static tcp 172.20.20.25
> 172.20.50.25
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:48:38 GMT-3