Re: pf and windows networking

[Greg Thomas <getbsd_(_at_)_sbcglobal_(_dot_)_net>]

On Monday, Dec 9, 2002, at 18:49 US/Pacific, David Norman wrote:

> > Windows Networking, or SMB, or samba or CIFS as you can call it has
> > great problems with being NATed. I have never gone into details, but
> > using it from behind NATing routers has never really worked for
> > anyone I know tried to.
> >
> > I'd suggest an other solution. I assume you NAT because the client
> > machines you talk about have private IP-adresses. If this is in
> > fact true you should change the network so that all your on campus
> > routers know how to route to that private network, and NAT only
> > those connections going off-campus.
> >
> > This gives you internally one IP address per computer and externally
> > only one visible IP address. My university handles the computer
> > pools like this (well, actually no NAT, only proxies) and I think
> > it's the right way to handle it.
>
> What you're talking about still involves NATing somehow. The private
> IP'ed stations would still need access to the Internet as well as the
> Windows shares and 10.x.x.x wouldn't be routable.

You don't have to NAT private addresses on a private network.  If it's 
your own network you can route what you like to route.  The OP's 
suggestion of just routing amongst private their subnets and using NAT 
for those off-campus connections is fine.

Greg