Re: [TCLUG:18127] Firewalled subnet configuration?

[Troy Johnson <troy.johnson@johnson.net>]

Ahh! Please excuse my misunderstanding.

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:
> My problem (or dilemna) is that I can not figure out how to get 200.0.0.5
> and 200.0.0.6 on separate interfaces - and I don't see how because of the
> network and broadcast address overlapping - or in this case - they simply
> fall in the same network no matter how you split.

Yeah, I don't think you can get those two addresses into separate
networks. Is the router to firewall network shared with other hosts? It
would be nice to eliminate the need for a routable address on the LAN
side of the router. Can you change this variable of the problem, or is
this a constant? 

> I haven't figured out if there is a way to do it with NAT on the router
> and then NAT on the firewall.

I think so. Has anyone done multiple layers of NAT? I can't think of a
reason it would not work, but I am no NATman.

> Any ideas?  I don't believe that it is actually possible.  If I discard
> the firewall - then it becomes an easy thing to do.  The firewall is my
> catch.

Just those, but I am sleepy. Anyone else?