|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [FW1] RE: NAT - Manual or Auto??
JP, here are my thoughts on NAT: 1. If you are going to do static nat for a bunch of machines on you internal network / DMZ, then I would use manual rules. I have used both the manual and the automatic translation rules. I have never had the problem with manual rules working, however occasionally the automatic rules fail / intermittently work. 2. If you are just doing hide nat for an internal network segment(ie: hiding 192.168.1.0/24 behind ur real-world address) thne go ahead and use the automatic translation rules. I have never had a problem doing this. hope this helps.... -Keith ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Keith Brogan / Kago Inc. Research and Development [email protected] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Jean-Pierre Harvey Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 7:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: NAT - Manual or Auto?? Hi all, Over a period of time I have seen several posts claiming that NAT is better set up manually in FW-1 rather than using the auto NAT features. I also have not seen anyone defend the auto NATing. So why is manual NAT so much better? Or, why is the automatic NATing not as good? Regards JP ================================================================================ To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html ================================================================================
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
