An interesting concept and one that I am familar with (not experienced with
but familiar). In am afraid that NATing a public dialup would cause some
customer software, including VPNs, to break and probably cause me untold
tech support headaches. I had considered assigning dialup customers
RFC1918 addresses and NATing them sometime ago but decided instead to use
non-routable addresses for nameservers and leave it at that.
I should have been clearer about my requirements.
If am misunderstanding the post, I apologize and ask for clarification.
--On Fri, 07 Jan 2000 11:03:37 +0100, Alfredo Sola said...
>
>> I have a 2620 that has two T1s connected to two different
>> providers in preparation for multihoming (no, I don't intend to
>> take full views). Provider A routes me a /23. Provider B routes
>> me a /24. The 2620 has 2 WICs and 1 Ethernet.
>
> Not a straight answer, but you will probably find this useful:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/cisco/mkt/ios/nat/tech/emios_wp.htm
>
> --
> Alfredo Sola
> Administrador del sistema
>
---End reply
-- Regards,Earl
**************************************************** Earl Smith Systems Administrator Parkcity Net Off: (435) 658-2398 Fax: (435) 658-0702 PO Box 980654, Park City, UT 84098 ***************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:08 EDT