Which is better - static route or NAT?

Which is better - static route or NAT?
NewsGroups | Search | Tools
User Password
Register Now! Lost Password?
 comp.dcom.sys.cisco  Post an article  get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content  add this group's latest topics to your Google content  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Which is better - static route or NAT? bthetford 09-26-2006
Posted by bthetford on September 26, 2006, 3:30 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
We have 3 routable IPs from COX for our business line coming through an
1811 router.
Call them 2.2.2.a ,2.2.2.b, and 2.2.2.c

The router has 2.2.2.a assigned to its FE0 interface and is connected
to the cable modem.
There are two internal servers which are supposed to be accessible via
2.2.2.b and 2.2.2.c from the internet.
Right now, we have static NAT set up for those two systems and are
using 10.0.0.a and 10.0.2.b for their internal side.
That works well, for the most part. The problem is when we have other
systems on the internal network trying to access these servers via
their public addresses.

Would it work better (or at all) if I simply set up static routes for
2.2.2.b and 2.2.2.c and forward them out the vlan0 interface
(10.0.0.c)?
If so, what changes would have to be made on the servers other than
setting a NIC's IP to the appropriate external address for each server?
Would the gateway for the servers remain 10.0.0.c or would I have to do
something else?


NMFall 20%
Posted by Rohan on September 27, 2006, 11:13 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Are these servers hosted in a firewall DMZ?



> We have 3 routable IPs from COX for our business line coming through an
> 1811 router.
> Call them 2.2.2.a ,2.2.2.b, and 2.2.2.c
>
> The router has 2.2.2.a assigned to its FE0 interface and is connected
> to the cable modem.
> There are two internal servers which are supposed to be accessible via
> 2.2.2.b and 2.2.2.c from the internet.
> Right now, we have static NAT set up for those two systems and are
> using 10.0.0.a and 10.0.2.b for their internal side.
> That works well, for the most part. The problem is when we have other
> systems on the internal network trying to access these servers via
> their public addresses.
>
> Would it work better (or at all) if I simply set up static routes for
> 2.2.2.b and 2.2.2.c and forward them out the vlan0 interface
> (10.0.0.c)?
> If so, what changes would have to be made on the servers other than
> setting a NIC's IP to the appropriate external address for each server?
> Would the gateway for the servers remain 10.0.0.c or would I have to do
> something else?
>



Posted by bthetford on September 27, 2006, 1:27 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Rohan wrote:
> Are these servers hosted in a firewall DMZ?


The firewall is very unrestrictive, right now, anyway, but yes they are
in DMZ.


Posted by Rohan on September 28, 2006, 1:36 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
I suppose if you have a default route pointing to the inside interface of
the firewall you should be able to NAT them to using the Public address when
they cross Internal to DMZ.



> Rohan wrote:
>> Are these servers hosted in a firewall DMZ?
>
>
> The firewall is very unrestrictive, right now, anyway, but yes they are
> in DMZ.
>



Posted by on September 28, 2006, 2:24 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
I think NAT is better

Network solution for tomorrow.
LinkWaves Corp
29980 Technology Drive, Suite 6
Murrieta, CA 92563
http://www.linkwaves.com
ciscoseller(at)gmail.com


Rohan wrote:
> I suppose if you have a default route pointing to the inside interface of
> the firewall you should be able to NAT them to using the Public address when
> they cross Internal to DMZ.
>
>
>
> > Rohan wrote:
> >> Are these servers hosted in a firewall DMZ?
> >
> >
> > The firewall is very unrestrictive, right now, anyway, but yes they are
> > in DMZ.
> >


Similar ThreadsPosted
What is the default precedence: local-route, static-route, OSPF-route? August 4, 2008, 3:00 am
Need to route SMTP traffic through static interface (not default route) March 27, 2007, 5:19 pm
Can netwrok run static route and dynamic route the same time? December 1, 2005, 1:18 pm
how to set a Static route in an 837 March 7, 2005, 8:38 pm
static route October 3, 2005, 6:15 am
Static Route that won't go away September 8, 2006, 11:18 am
PIX 506 static route October 11, 2006, 6:19 pm
static route December 13, 2006, 11:53 am
Static Route December 20, 2007, 11:41 am
IOS: Static Route on Interface December 14, 2004, 9:00 pm

other useful resources:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Telecommunications Industry Association
Electronic and Software Security Products and Services
International Telecommunication Union

Custom CGI Perl and PHP programming by 1-Script.com

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
The site map in XML format XML site map