Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(June 1997)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Plug-gw- One to many relationship
From: Anton J Aylward <anton @ the-wire . com>
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 23:48:22 -0400
To: Bernd Eckenfels <lists @ lina . inka . de>
Cc: firewalls @ greatcircle . com

At 02:37 AM 09/06/97 +0200, you wrote:
## Reply Start ##

>> Anton> One public address, and a 10.x.x.x of internal addresses and web
>         ------------------  
>> Anton> servers.  POW! The address space problem just went away.
>> 
>> It's called NAT (or NAPT) and is part of ip-filter. There are even diffs
for 
>> making the fwtk app proxies work with it. Next question?
>
>With one public address you can run only one WWW Server on Port 80.

That's just my point.
Despite many people telling me the one-to-many has some magic
way of extracting the data lost in the many to one mapping.

Yes, I've had people tell me no information is lost is the 
mufti-hosts sharing one IP address.  Just having NAT doesn't
work that magic.  This is about incoming, not outgoing, plugs.

Thanks, Brend, for restoring my confidence that someone
out there knows what I was talking about.

>Greetings
>Bernd


## Reply End ##


Follow-Ups:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: NAT??
From: Chris Lonvick <clonvick @ cisco . com>
Next: Re: Stateful Packet Filters vs. Proxies
From: "Craig I. Hagan" <hagan @ cih . com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Plug-gw- One to many relationship
From: "Carl V. Claunch" <carl @ hdshq . com>
Next: Re: Plug-gw- One to many relationship
From: "Craig I. Hagan" <hagan @ cih . com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com