Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint

[Ben Nelson <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

You must have some static's in place then, which is a static 'NAT'
translation.

Cyril Guibourg wrote:
| "Otero, Hernan         (EDS)" <HOtero@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
|
|
|>I think you do, because at least a nat 0 it´s needed to get traffic
passing
|>through the pix.
|
|
| This is odd, I do have a running config under 6.2 without any nat
statement.
|
| _______________________________________________
| Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
| Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA4wsz3cL8qXKvzcwRArrMAJ9Otrq2qHTR4JV2ajPs7bemcR4WwwCcD++K
LO+GQKUn4B8NRt8zbCq2GaI=
=DTNj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html