Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: PIX vs CheckPoint
From: Ben Nelson <lists () venom600 org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:49:24 -0600
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 You must have some static's in place then, which is a static 'NAT' translation. Cyril Guibourg wrote: | "Otero, Hernan (EDS)" <HOtero () lanchile cl> 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA4wsz3cL8qXKvzcwRArrMAJ9Otrq2qHTR4JV2ajPs7bemcR4WwwCcD++K LO+GQKUn4B8NRt8zbCq2GaI= =DTNj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint, (continued)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Simon Burr (Jun 29)
- RE: PIX vs CheckPoint; IMHO Netscreen is far superior Edward W. Ray (Jun 29)
- RE: PIX vs CheckPoint; IMHO Netscreen is far superior Gary E. Miller (Jun 29)
- RE: PIX vs CheckPoint Perrymon, Josh L. (Jun 29)
- RE: PIX vs CheckPoint Otero, Hernan (EDS) (Jun 29)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint B3r3n (Jun 29)
- RE: PIX vs CheckPoint Ray P (Jun 29)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Jim Burwell (Jun 30)
- RE: PIX vs CheckPoint Otero, Hernan (EDS) (Jun 30)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Cyril Guibourg (Jun 30)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Ben Nelson (Jun 30)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Cyril Guibourg (Jun 30)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Jim Burwell (Jun 30)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Cyril Guibourg (Jun 30)