O.K. How about some more information?

I'm working with a few folks that have ISP's that assign them a 10.0.0.X
adress via DHCP. I assume that by using 10.0.0.X, the ISP must be doing NAT as
well. These folks want to use NAT as well via a Wireless Base Station on
their end (to get access for multiple client machines.) This Base Station
defaults to using 10.0.1.X to assign it's clients. It is configured to get it's
WAN Address from the ISP - 10.0.0.X.

Well in short, something isn't working, and we're trying to figure out the
problem.

Gerry
simmons@darykon.cet.com


On Thu, 27 Jul 2002 J. Buck Caldwell wrote:
> 
> Hmmm.. I know you could do it with 192.168.0.0/24 and 192.168.1.0/24 - 
> but I don't know about 10.0.0.0. However, big question - why bother with 
> a second NAT? Can you just assign whatever would be using the NAT to use 
> a seperate subnet?
> 
> As such: I have a coporate HQ using 192.168.0.0/24, with a frame relay 
> router on 192.168.0.250. Each branch is connected to the router, with 
> subnets 192.168.X.0/24 (X=branch number), and each branch's router is 
> addressed 192.168.X.1. Each branch router serves it's own DHCP for it's 
> branch, and routing is simple. Of course, the limitation is that we can 
> only have 253 devices at each branch, but there is no translation going 
> on, so all devices are directly addressable internally. Also, we have a 
> dial-up system in the corporate router, that assigns addresses in the 
> block 192.168.255.X. I can dial in from my home network, which dials in 
> as 192.168.255.1, and uses NAT/DHCP to assign my home network of 
> 192.168.100.X/24 (which does NOT exist as a branch), and everything 
> works great (except that I can't directly address my home machines from 
> work, as they're behind NAT).
> 
> Any questions?
> 
>