Re: Say it ain't so

Paul D. Robertson (probertsclark.net)
Fri, 19 Sep 1997 10:18:36 -0400 (EDT)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
• Next message: David Collier-Brown: "Good background references (www)"
• Previous message: john kerr: "Downfalls of Proxy Server"
• Next in thread: Carl Friedberg, carlcomets.com: "Re: Say it ain't so"

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Rick Murphy wrote:

> Possibly. If you're using somebody else's IP addresses on your network, you
> need a firewall that supports NAT to avoid readdressing. Otherwise, there's

You don't _need_ NAT, a proxy based firewall will work without
re-addressing. You'll not be able to reach the legitimate owners of the
netblock you're using, without a NAT system that supports routing based on
the interface a packet arrived on combined with source and destination
address, and which bi-directionally NATs the packets in and out from that
network though. NAT itself doesn't necessarily provide that solution
without per-interface and independent source/destination address translation.

Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
probertsclark.net which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
                                                                     PSB#9280

• Next message: David Collier-Brown: "Good background references (www)"
• Previous message: john kerr: "Downfalls of Proxy Server"
• Next in thread: Carl Friedberg, carlcomets.com: "Re: Say it ain't so"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Jul 17 1999 - 07:08:58 CDT