Prev: 871W: Wi-fi to Wi-fi unreliable
Next: I am looking to buy the below Cisco models.I also buy networking and telecom equipment from Nortel, Brocade, Juniper, Extreme, Foundry, IBM, HP, Companq and more.
From: Tom on 8 Aug 2010 16:16
On Aug 8, 3:59 pm, Tom <tdenham...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 8, 3:14 pm, Rob <nom...(a)example.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tom <tdenham...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 8, 1:31 pm, Rob <nom...(a)example.com> wrote:
> > >> Tom <tdenham...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > I'm beginning to think this syntax is not correct:
>
> > >> > ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.103 80 interface
> > >> > FastEthernet1
> > >> > 80 extendable
>
> > >> > Any other suggestions ?
>
> > >> I think it should be "overload" instead of "extendable".
>
> > > Nope...will not take any args after the port number.  The help "?"
> > > shows <cr> as the last option in this case.
>
> > > Is very odd, because seems should be such a simple thing to do.
>
> > And it does not work?
>
> This works:
>
> ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.103 22 68.204.221.132 22
> extendable
>
> But obviously that won't do because the IP will change.  Using DDNS to
> always get to my internal IP.

Ouch! I didn't notice that my DDNS was not working...

Turns out this does work:

ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.103 22 interface Ethernet0
22

My DDNS name was not being updated for some reason and IP had changed.

Thanks for all the feedback!

....walks away red faced....
From: Morph on 8 Aug 2010 16:20
In the message
<54a077a3-da45-4332-b926-8ddc04e340f5(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> Tom
wrote:

| > ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.103 80 interface FastEthernet1
| > 80 extendable
|
| Thanks for quick reply, but...seems extendable is seen as invalid
| input. Maybe IOS?

Try without the extendable command. It should work.
From: Tom on 8 Aug 2010 16:37
On Aug 8, 4:20 pm, Morph <morph.n...(a)g.m.a.i.l> wrote:
> In the message
> <54a077a3-da45-4332-b926-8ddc04e34...(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> Tom
> wrote:
>
> | > ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.103 80 interface FastEthernet1
> | > 80 extendable
> |
> | Thanks for quick reply, but...seems extendable is seen as invalid
> | input.  Maybe IOS?
>
> Try without the extendable command. It should work.

Thanks...you are correct...worked without extendable:)
From: bod43 on 8 Aug 2010 19:43
On 8 Aug, 21:37, Tom <tdenham...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 8, 4:20 pm, Morph <morph.n...(a)g.m.a.i.l> wrote:
>
> > In the message
> > <54a077a3-da45-4332-b926-8ddc04e34...(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> Tom
> > wrote:
>
> > | > ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.103 80 interface FastEthernet1
> > | > 80 extendable
> > |
> > | Thanks for quick reply, but...seems extendable is seen as invalid
> > | input.  Maybe IOS?
>
> > Try without the extendable command. It should work.
>
> Thanks...you are correct...worked without extendable:)

I never use "extendable" I read the documentation, failed
to understand it at all and have never looked back:-)

It is in a lot of Cisco examples and lots of people do seem
to put it in their NAT statements but I kind of like to
know what is going on.


From: Tom on 8 Aug 2010 20:08
On Aug 8, 7:43 pm, bod43 <Bo...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 8 Aug, 21:37, Tom <tdenham...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 8, 4:20 pm, Morph <morph.n...(a)g.m.a.i.l> wrote:
>
> > > In the message
> > > <54a077a3-da45-4332-b926-8ddc04e34...(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> Tom
> > > wrote:
>
> > > | > ip nat inside source static tcp192.168.1.103 80interface FastEthernet1
> > > | > 80 extendable
> > > |
> > > | Thanks for quick reply, but...seems extendable is seen as invalid
> > > | input.  Maybe IOS?
>
> > > Try without the extendable command. It should work.
>
> > Thanks...you are correct...worked without extendable:)
>
> I never use "extendable" I read the documentation, failed
> to understand it at all and have never looked back:-)
>
> It is in a lot of Cisco examples and lots of people do seem
> to put it in their NAT statements but I kind of like to
> know what is going on.

I'll probably never use it either. I too tried to make sense of it,
but just couldn't see why it is necessary. Seems fine without it:)
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: 871W: Wi-fi to Wi-fi unreliable
Next: I am looking to buy the below Cisco models.I also buy networking and telecom equipment from Nortel, Brocade, Juniper, Extreme, Foundry, IBM, HP, Companq and more.