RE: Re: Day wasted: Help needed please

["Ian Lowe" <ian@xxxxxxx>]

Yargh.

That's not NAT, That's Microsoft's Demon Ba****d Spawn version of NAT.

I think the point being made is that NAT solutions (such as Winroute,
Firewall-1, or Linux IP Masquerading)
are usually much better than ICS.

The NAT built into Win2K RRAS is indeed Hell's worst diablerie, and not any
sort of rule by which you should judge the tehcnology!!!!



-----Original Message-----
From: joaopedrodeoliveira [mailto:p.oliveira@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 24 February 2002 12:34
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: [ukha_d] Re: Day wasted: Help needed please


NAT needs to be configured through RRAS and a lot of options need to
chosen to get it to work (which I couldn't do) wheras ICS is a one
click operation.  In this respect they are different.  It is true
that they do the same thing but one is highly configurable and the
other is not - the NOT option is easier and its the one that I
managed to get to work with the DHCP and DNS.

For those who don't know: NAT can be found in Win2k Server and
Advanced Server in RRAS under Admin tools.

Pedro

--- In ukha_d@y..., "Darren Henderson" <shmern@s...> wrote:
> Small point but ICS *IS* NAT
>
> ICS = Internet Connection Sharing
>
> NAT = Network Address Translation
>
> ICS is just Microsoft's implementation of NAT, Winroute/sygate
etc.. are
> all capable of running NAT as well.
>
> The benefits of running other NAT software over ICS is they
generally
> allow much greater configuration.
>
> Darren



For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/