Another PIX Question posted 11/12/2006
- Subject: Another PIX Question
- From: "Lab Rat #109385382" <techlist01@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 00:36:31 -0800
- Content-language: en-us
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:reply-to:from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; b=ZYD14Czb7WK9BEeHbowghMRwatWL0iR6Qs+RoLt56lgQAwOMvoA98mDPBp2t/O+V7K7DEXpriXL2t5a8cd/idK0i5h54Sv32D1Vmzf/8Rb75kgNo4f1hHWau0g7wYk7YB/VdXf1XfpFH5Oi6j8nsxXCHrO+//IDUEOOYabRPV+A=
- Thread-index: AccGNaXeX3JoCp41TgOLCSp/jkk9kQ==
I have a question regarding PIX NAT (assume appropriate static routes are in
If I choose a NAT 0 statement over a Static NAT statement (inside to
outside), won't that mean outside hosts will never be able to ping the NAT 0
network unless there is already a translation in the NAT table?
Versus, Static NAT statically defines the inside network to the outside,
right? Which makes it possible to ping those hosts without the inside
having to come out first?
I've been pinging the internal hosts from the outside and this seems to be
the behavior because I get timeouts, but I just want to make sure that I'm
not configuring something wacky.?