Would it not just be easier to give the computers the 158... addresses (via
dhcp or staticly)?
On Jan 30, 2012 5:39 PM, "James Courtier-Dutton" <james.dutton@???>
wrote:
>
> On 30 January 2012 17:21, James Bensley <jwbensley@???> wrote:
>
> > Are you referring to dynamic pools per chance?
> > http://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter/2001-March/008924.html
> >
> > This is an example of mapping 192.168.1.0/24 to another /24 but
> > dynamically, so 192.168.1.17 might not become 10.0.0.17, it might
> > become 10.0.0.33. Otherwise you need static pools or some sort of NAT
> > masquerading with 1:1 NAT.
> >
> I am looking for static 1:1 NAT,
> 192.168.1.1 must always be translated to 158.152.1.1
> 192.168.1.2 must always be translated to 158.152.1.2
> etc.
>
> --
> Please post to: Hampshire@???
> Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
> LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk
> --------------------------------------------------------------
--
Please post to: Hampshire@???
Web Interface:
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
LUG URL:
http://www.hantslug.org.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------
