Re: (ASCEND) Relaxation of the three digit NAT rule???

[Phillip Vandry <vandry@Mlink.NET>]

> Did I read somewhere that later code removed the restriction
> that the local private address space HAD to be xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
> vice any of the octets being only 2 digit?

Even if that restriction has been removed, you should find that the NAT is
more efficient if you still use internal addresses with 3 digit octets.
The 192.168.x.y private space is suitable for this.

What's important with respect to this is that the total length of the
external (registered, public) address be less than or equal to the length of
the internal one.

This is so that the NAT will be able to overwrite the address in the
packets' application data for applications (like FTP) that send IP addresses
as text inside their datastream. If the external address is too long,
it will have to grow the packet. It might even have to fragment it in two.

-Phil
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>

---

References:

• (ASCEND) Relaxation of the three digit NAT rule???
• From: David Lesher <wb8foz@nrk.com>

---

• Prev by Date: (ASCEND) Modem Strings for Use with Flexed Maxen?
• Next by Date: Re: (ASCEND) # in RADIUS users file (fwd)
• Prev by thread: (ASCEND) Relaxation of the three digit NAT rule???
• Next by thread: Re: (ASCEND) Relaxation of the three digit NAT rule???
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread