Re: [FW1] RE: NAT - Manual or Auto??

["Mario Kadastik" <mario@FW1-NOSPAMneti.ee>]

Hy

There are going to be new fetures in CP Next Generation that add more
features
to auto Nat (it does the static route and arp itself and so on) and some of
them
do not apply to manual nat ... atleast that's how I understood it at CP
Experience event...

I haven't asked the question over e-mail from them yet but i remember there
were some
small things that wouldn't be done on manual nat that were on automatic one.
Of course
I am not saying not to use manual nat for other purposes (services and so
on) but just
to be someone to say something good about auto nat too :))

Mario Kadastik
CCSE
Estonian Telecommunications Co Ltd
mario@neti.ee

> > 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?
>
> Manual NAT is better, because you can change the order of NAT
> rules; so much more flexible than automatic NAT. In complex
> environment this is a very important thing... With automatic
> NAT, you can't make any changes in the questionable rules,
> can't add services, destinations, etc. etc.




================================================================================
     To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
               http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
================================================================================