Well, in this case, the "router to the outside net" is an Ascend ISDN router, 
so it is needed to connect to the outside (I don't have a way to make the NAT 
box -- a NetBSD machine -- speak ISDN).  I was hoping that rather than setting 
up two ether segments (one shared between the NAT box and the Ascend and one 
shared between the NAT box and the inside machine(s)) I could put all the 
machines on one segment (it saves a hub and a NIC).

--rafal

---------- Original Text ----------

From: "Tom T. Thai" <tomthai@future.net>, on 6/17/97 1:09 PM:

you can use the NAT box as the router.. with PPP link to the Net and 
ether to the LAN.

On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, Rafal Boni wrote:

> Is it possible to set up a single-interface IPNat box??
> 
> A friend of mine has a need to set up a home network and the box he procured
> to do NAT currently only has one NIC.  What we were thinking is:
> 
>                                         (The Net)
>                                             |
>  (inside host)        (NAT box)    (router to outside)
>       |                    |                |
>       \--------------------|----------------/
> 
> Where inside host is assigned a non-routable address, the NAT box has a 
"real"
> IP address on the interface and an alias that is also a non-routable address.
> 
> Inside host default gateway == non-routable address of NAT box
> NAT box default gateway == router
> 
> Getting another NIC obviously isn't a horrendous expense in this day and age,
> but I'm curious whether the above setup should work (in theory or in 
practice).
> I haven't looked at the IPFilter documentation enough to determine whether > 
we were both crazy or not.
> 
> Any comments appreciated (other than comments on our sanity.. We know we're
> crazy 8-)
> 
> --rafal
> 
> ----
> Rafal Boni 
rkboni@concentric.net
> 


..............          ....................................
Thomas T. Thai          Infomedia Interactive Communications
tom@iic.net             TEL 612.376.9090 * FAX 612.376.9087