RE: Q: Cannot access published web server from inte rnal network

Hi Jim,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Harrison [mailto:jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, 28 September 2001 10:20
> To: [ISAserver.org Discussion List]
> Subject: [isalist] RE: Q: Cannot access published web server from inte
> rnal network
> 
> 
> http://www.ISAserver.org
> 
> 
> Yes, I understood that, and even once thought that it should happen
> "transparently", but after fighting my way through it and 
> learning a bit
> about ISA, I came to understand that it just doesn't make 
> sense to ask the
> NAT process to "double-NAT" the packet when a direct 
> connection is not only
> possible, but more efficient.
> 
> Essentially, the packet travels like this:
> 1. the client at 192.168.0.2 gets the external IP for the 
> requested name,
> say 123.123.123.123.
> 2. the client then proceeds to ask ISA to proxy the request to that IP
> address
> 3. ISA receives the request and attempts to route the request 
> to the NAT
> editor, who then realizes that the original source IP and the new
> destination IP are in both the LAT.  At this point the ISA 
> logic asks "why
> are we even trying to do this?" and drops the communication 
> while making an
> event log entry.
> 
> It's an effect I like to refer to as "isotropic IP bounce" 
> (with a smirk)
> and it's just doesn't make sense in the grand scheme of things.

You mean MS are making products that make sense now??  (I'll see your
smirk and raise you a nervous giggle :)

It doesn't make sense to 'doubleNAT', but it sure as hell makes things
easier to setup :/

I'm still attempting to get everything to 'click' here - I've got the
option of either doing the DMZ thing (have ~8 IP's ready to roll) or the
published internal server.  I'm still yet to get the DMZ server working
correctly - leaving me with a published internal server - most painful -
as it would appear that I'm in the same boat :/

-- 
Anthony Michaud 
Network Administrator 
Act! Certified Consultant 
eLogix Corporation Pty Ltd 

You've got an anti-anti-antimissile missile? Well, we've got an
anti-anti-anti-antimissile missile!" - Get Smart! 



Other related posts: