Re: [CUWiN] nat bogosity (was: circular route)

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 01:08:08PM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> (Please excuse me if I say something rediculous, I've only had experience with
> simple NAT'ing so far)
> 
> I don't quite see how that mapping would help this scenario. If we look at the
> existing NAT table on Node A, we see:
> 
> # ipnat -l
> List of active MAP/Redirect filters:
> 1: rdr sip0 192.168.0.1/32 port 80 -> 127.0.0.1 port 80 tcp
> 2: map sip0 10.0.0.0/8 -> 192.168.42.22/32 portmap tcp/udp 10000:20000
> 3: map sip0 10.0.0.0/8 -> 192.168.42.22/32
> 
> This allows all nodes connected to Node A to have internet access via Router A,
> but prevents all clients on LAN A access to the mesh network.
> 
> If sip0's self-assigned subnet is 10.216.111.0/24, with IP 10.216.111.254,
> alias 192.168.42.22, and default gw 192.168.42.1, your suggestion would become:
> 
> 4: map ath0 192.168.42/24 -> 10.216.111/24 portmap tcp/udp 10000:20000
> 5: map ath0 192.168.42/24 -> 10.216.111/24
> 
> If I understand correctly, rules 2-3 would conflict with 4-5, right?

I don't think so.  Try it and let me know.

> Putting that aside, with the existing cuwireless software, would the ideal
> scenario be to add a 3rd node, Node N, handling DHCP for LAN A, and providing
> internet connectivity for LAN A, Node A and beyond?
> 
> (internet)--sip0(Node N):sip1--<LAN A>
>                   sip2
>                    |
>                     \-----(Node A)~~~(Node Z)--<LAN Z>

Ideally, you will use no more than two nodes in this scenario.  If Node
A has two ethernets, you could use one as the "WAN port," and the other
as the "LAN port."

Dave

-- 
David Young             OJC Technologies
[email protected]      Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933
_______________________________________________
CU-Wireless mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/cu-wireless
Project Page: http://cuwireless.ucimc.org