> From: Dana Bourgeois [mailto:Dana AT slamdunknetworks DOT com]
> Sent: Friday 16 February, 2001 17:49

> Have you gotten this to work?  I understand the theory of why
> you think it would work but if you haven't tried it yourself then until
> someone reports that they have it working, I would rather overgeneralize
> about NAT than make assumptions.

 i try to write only things i'm sure about ;-)

 i've set up some weeks ago two clients across a Cisco PIX doing dynamic
NAT - this coul'nt work.
 so we've set up two static mapping for those clients. clients were
seen from the media server with different IPs than the "real" one
(clients have public IP addresses, but were seen from the media server
with private RFC1597 address, ie. 192.168.x.x.). i don't remember
what i put in the hosts files on server & clients, i had to do
some testing before finfing the correct combination - bpcd &
bprd logs in this case.

 we still had to allow the usual ports in order for backups
to run.

 Amicalement,
             fx

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

--
    fx AT veritas DOT com        | Serious error. All
François-Xavier Peretmere | Shortcuts have disppeared.
 http://www.veritas.com/  | Screen. Mind. Both are blank.