[NTLUG:Discuss] NAT -almost

[ntlug@rain.lewisville.tx.us]

"Gregory L. Camp" <Greg.Camp at osc.com> wrote ..
> > <snip>
> > 
> > So here is what I did  (AFTER upgrading the kernel to 2.2.18 
> > and locating
> > and successfully compiling the source for the IPROUTE2 command, ip
> > (http://ftp.sunet.se/ftp/pub/network/ip-routing/iproute2-curre
> >nt.tar.gz))
> 
> ><example>
> >>ip route add 64.218.3.106/32 via 10.1.61.3
> Shouldn't this be 'ip route add nat 64.218.3.106/32 via 10.1.61.3'
> (added the word 'nat' after add)

Yes. I did at the nat after the add in my example.  or did it.  Ok.  rechecking....

> 
> >>ip route list
> >64.218.3.107 via 10.1.61.3 dev eth1
> That's not the same IP as above (.106 vs .107) was it supposed to be?
> 
> Greg
> _______________________________________________

Yes, it was suppose to be the same.  I changed the ip addresses to protect the innocent.  I thought I had matched everything up correctly.  HEY WOW!  GOOD CATCH!  I don't think I'll ever break the habit of late night computing..Morning computing is so much better, fewer mistakes and all, but you just start going on a problem or issue and you can't stop!


ok.  Rechecking.  I'll be back..

One more thing..  Shouldn't you have to bind the address to be NAT'ed to say an ETH0:2 interface?