From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Dec 06 2004 - 08:18:59 GMT-3
Donny,
Doyle does that without a route-map by using the keyword, Extended, at the
end of each static nat statement.
At this point, I suspect that both methods do the same thing but the
route-map method is the new way to do this.
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donny mateo Tandase" <donnymateo@yahoo.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:55 AM
Subject: Re: Face-Off - Dolye vs Deal on NAT
> Tim
> I don't have Doel with me right now and I don't have the other book.
> But lets see a sample usage of static route-map, see whether Doel is
trying to achieve the same thing.
> For instance you have a router with 3 interface. 1 to your LAN
(100.0.0.0/8) and 2 to another network 1.0.0.0/8 and 2.0.0.0/8. LAN is NAT
inside interface and the rest are NAT outside interface.
> Now what static NAT with route map can achieve is to use a different
static translation for the same source when going out to certain
destination.
> So say
> 100.1.1.1 going to 1.1.1.1 would be translated to 1.100.100.100 while
> 100.1.1.1 going to 2.2.2.2 would be translated to 2.100.100.100.
>
> I don't know how to achieve the same with normal static NAT or dynamic
NAT. This can be done by using static NAT with route-map. The past static
NAT will NAT source to the static IP address configured without regards on
which destination the traffic actually goes to.
>
> Cheers,
> D.
>
> ccie2be <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Thanks Sameh for your response.
>
> Actually, I was aware of that, but what I wanted to make sure of is
whether
> there was something I was missing in the Deal example that REQUIRED the
use
> of route-maps since the Doyle example seems to accomplish the same exact
> thing without using route-map.
>
> In other words, what added functionality does using the route-maps provide
> if, as the Doyle shows you, the same thing can be accomplished without
> route-maps?
>
> Thanks again, Tim
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sameh El Tawil"
> To: "ccie2be" ; "Group Study"
> Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 11:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Face-Off - Dolye vs Deal on NAT
>
>
> > Tim,
> > The static translation with a route-map is a new feature in 12.2(4)T.
This
> > was released sometime in mid 2004 and did not exist when Doyle released
> his
> > book. Before that route-maps were only allowed with dynamic
translations.
> >
> > HTH,
> > Sameh
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "ccie2be"
> > To: "Group Study"
> > Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 4:32 PM
> > Subject: Face-Off - Dolye vs Deal on NAT
> >
> >
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > In the book, Cisco Router Firewall Security, by Richard Deal on page
520
> > he
> > > has an example of static translation
> > >
> > > which almost exactly the same as the example in Doyle's Routing TCP/IP
v
> > II on
> > > page 378.
> > >
> > > The only difference is that Deal uses a route-map in the static
> > translation,
> > > Dolye does not.
> > >
> > > My question is whether the route-map is REQUIRED in Deal's example or
is
> > it
> > > just to show that's it's possible to use a route-map.
> > >
> > > Given Dolye's example of the same scenario, it seems to me that the
> > route-map
> > > is NOT required, but I want to make sure I'm not missing something.
> > >
> > > TIA, Tim
> > >
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 03 2005 - 10:31:24 GMT-3