I've never tried it using something other than 10.0.0.x/24, but in CBOS 2.3.x at least it lets you specify the internal IP address, which would lead me to believe that you could use any address space on the inside that you wanted. But again, I've never tried it so I don't know. There were enhancements to it's translation features listed on the CBOS 2.3 release notes, so maybe they did implement true NAT. Adam Maloney Systems Administrator Sihope Communications On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Bob Tanner wrote: > Quoting Adam Maloney (adamm at sihope.com): > > I wouldn't have a problem using the 675 to do the NAT, but I wouldn't use > > it as the firewall just because it's not powerful/configurable enough. I > > have a routed block so I'm not doing NAT, but none of my customers have > > any problems with it. Some of them are even doing some pretty complicated > > static NAT entries. > > Unless things have changed the 675 does not do NAT, it only does PAT, thus it > forces you to have an intern LAN of 10.0.0.1. > -- > Bob Tanner <tanner at real-time.com> | Phone : (612)943-8700 > http://www.mn-linux.org | Fax : (612)943-8500 > Key fingerprint = 6C E9 51 4F D5 3E 4C 66 62 A9 10 E5 35 85 39 D9 > > _______________________________________________ > tclug-list mailing list > tclug-list at lists.real-time.com > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >