Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
From: "David Howe" <DaveHowe () gmx co uk>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:29:33 +0100

"Roeland Meyer" <rmeyer () mhsc com> wrote:
Absolutely true. I'll take that clarification.
Not one of mine, but more or less what I was thinking.

|> which of course *is* possible for at least one machine per visible IP
|> address - even if additional IPs are masqed behind it.
if you are doing one:one NAT then why do NAT at all?
Plenty of reasons - you can have an entire 1918 network behind there, and
only one or two machines "visible"; by using NAT rather than directly
feeding those IP addresses to the machines involved, you simplify routing
and separate admin of internal and external (if you need to fall back to a
backup machine, you can have it running live in parallel, and one config
change on the NAT will change the visible machine)
It is pretty common practice for a company with a small (/24 say) allocation
to static-NAT one or more to individual servers inside their lan,
particuarly if those servers have functions like web proxy or email server.

if you are doing one:many then it won't work (broken).
no, it *will* work for the one that is the default.

working from a one-IP allocation, let us assume a 1918 subnet on
192.168.123.x for the backend lan

Workpc1-->Workpc40 -->

 bearing in mind that "natdevice.mycompany.com" is also the external visible
IP (via a separate interface) do suitably stateful Nat:
for inbound port 80 - rewrite packet to web.mycompany.com
for inbound port 25 - rewrite packet to ftp.mycompany.com
for outbound from webproxy.mycompany.com or teleconferencing.mycompany.com -
do stateful NAT
for outbound from any other machine - ignore
for inbound not covered by above - rewrite packet to

with this setup, Teleconferencing.mycompany.com will appear to the internet
to be listening on whatever ports it chooses to support, and also appear to
be doing a whole heap of other things that it really isn't. In practice, a
company would probably want to spread out the IPs here a little and get a
bigger allocation, but it *could* be done this way if it had to be.

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]