From: Church, Chuck (cchurch@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Apr 22 2002 - 15:50:28 GMT-3
Albert,
It all depends what you're trying to do. It's always a good idea to
have your servers behind a firewall to limit what ports are accessible.
Putting publicly-accessible servers on a DMZ is never a bad idea. It
usually comes down to how complicated you want to make it and how much the
client is willing to spend.
Chuck Church
Sr. Network Engineer
CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
US Tennis Association
70 W. Red Oak Lane
White Plains, NY 10604
914-696-7199
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Albert Lu
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 11:32 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Static NAT for Public Servers
Hello Group,
Are there any issues with utilising static NAT to translate publicly
routable addresses to private addresses for web servers and other publicly
accessable servers? The translation will be one-to-one static, so each
public address maps to a private address.
Will it be better to just have the servers have public addresses, rather
than have them behind a NAT?
Thanks in advance.
Albert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:16 GMT-3