[NTLUG:Discuss] NAT -almost

[Gregory L. Camp]

> > >>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?

Well, I think the answer is "it depends!"  When I read your example I was
picturing a machine somewhere on the local lan with the ip of 10.1.61.3.  If
that's the case, then this box would need to know how to route that ip
internally.

If this is a firewall box with 2 nic's in it, then I would imagine the
external ip would be on eth0 (for example) and that the internal lan would
be on eth1.  That's just one way to do it.  You could also do it via an
"alias" of eth0:2 or something like that.

Greg