iptables, do I need to NAT?
 

Hi,

I have the following config:

<real-IP>router<192.168.1.1> <--> <192.168.1.10>linux<192.168.8.1> <--> <192.168.8.100-199>pc-computers

The router is obviously not in bridge mode. Most internetaccess on PC-computers works fine, but some SSL VPN accesses does not work for example Citrix SSL VPN.

Even if I allow all traffic from a PC to internet on the linux (OUTPUT and FORWARD) it does not work.

One other think that does not work on PC's is video-streaming with Voddler.

Do I need to NAT 192.168.1.0-IP'S to the PC's? How do I do that?

For example do I need to NAT an IP like, 192.168.1.12 to a PC on the inside with the IP 192.168.8.106?

//zaZagor

You shouldn't .. does the router have a static route for the 192.168.8.0 network via 192.168.1.10 ?

in my knowledge you can not do routing if you use private addressing...

.. that's correct only when traffic needs to travel between a private network and the Internet, in this case the routing will be between the 192.168.1.0 and 192.168.8.0 networks. The router is the gateway between the internal networks and the Internet so it will be performing the NAT function.

cheers

yes you are right....was seeing only the private address...my fault

linuxbasiccommand, isn't it enough that we allow you to include links to your blog in your signature? In the one day you've been a member here at LQ, you've included links to your blog in pretty much every one of your posts. That's outright abuse, and it's completely unacceptable. I'm giving you a mandatory 7-day vacation while we clean up after you, and rest assured that when your ban expires we'll be keeping a close eye on you. Hopefully, you'll modify your behavior, otherwise your LQ privileges will be permanently affected. As always, if you (or anyone else) wish to discuss this matter, you're welcome to contact me via email.



EDIT: Please note that the linuxbasiccommand's post has been deleted.

Hence, this warning may seem out of place to anyone who didn't see the post originally.

No, the router does not have a static route for the 192.168.8.0 network via 192.168.1.10.
I will add that and see if it makes any difference.
Thanks for the suggestion.

//zaZagor