[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [FW1] NAT vs. PAT??
In my experience, NAT (vs. PAT) is usually a better choice if the addresses for
many-to-many NAT are available. One specific example is for ISAKMP/Oakley key
exchange used for setting up dynamic
IPSec VPNs. This works with most NATs, but will not work with any PATs as it
requires UDP/500 for
both the source and destination transport layer port numbers. PAT definitely
There are probably other examples, but I do not know of any offhand.
Bob Brandt, 3M, firstname.lastname@example.org
Keith Fontenot wrote:
> Is there is preference to using NAT(many to many) over PAT(many to one)? In
> other words if the addresses are available does using NAT buy you anything
> over using PAT?
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at