Re: Stateful NAT question

not speaking to just stateful nat, but the general use of route-maps over
access-list or other more 'static' configurations such as in bgp using a
route-map vs a neighbor statement is just about the flexibility the
route-map gives you to set more options and even add on later down the
road...

so necessary or unnecessary, just depends on your point of view...

--
Garry L. Baker
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine..." - RFC 1925
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Jacek <q.192.168.1.0_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello experts,
>
> I have a question about applying stateful nat. Cisco doc and IPexpert blog
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_4/12_4_mainline/snatsca.html
> http://blog.ipexpert.com/2009/04/27/high-availability-nat-with-hsrp/
>
> tell to use route-map, like this:
>
> # ip nat inside source route-map rm-101 pool SNATPOOL1 mapping-id 10
> overload
>
> Why they do not use "list" keyword instead:
> # ip nat inside source list 101 pool SNATPOOL1 mapping-id 10 overload
>
> It looks to me like configuring route-map that only matches an access
> lists is just an unnecessary step.
> Am I right ?
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net