RE: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint

["Perrymon, Josh L." <PerrymonJ@xxxxxxx>]

That is odd. You *must have some translations in place. Because you *must
have (2) different subnets. ( One outside and another on the inside ) So
when a packets transverses the pix and is sent outbound it must be
translated - Nat inside / Outside
or Nat 0 when using VPNs.

JP

-----Original Message-----
From: Cyril Guibourg [mailto:plonk-o-matic@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 1:18 PM
To: Otero, Hernan (EDS)
Cc: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint


"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

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