|
|
 |  |
Re: Dealing with NATFrom: Kirk Samuelson Date: Sunday, July 4, 1999
Time: 4:05:00 pmOn Sunday, July 4, 1999 5:32:42 AM, Men & Mice Support wrote:
>>Hi again. I'm on a DSL line which uses Network Address Translation to map
>>incoming requests to individual computers on my LAN. I have only one public
>>IP address for the router. NAT allows you to alias a real port (80) to a
>>private port (9001 for instance). Thus:
>>
>>166.90.75.31 -> Web Server A
>>166.90.75.31:9001 -> Web Server B
>>
>>This is all fine and dandy BUT dns records don't contain any port
>>information (do they?).
>
>That is correct.
>
>> So I can't use domain names for Web Server B. Or can
>>I? Is there a workaround for this?
>
>If I understand properly, in the above example, 166.90.75.31 is the public
>address, and web servers A and B are your physical machines behind the NAT
>proxy.
>
That's right. You got it.
>If this is the case, the best you can do is to point all your domain names
>at your public address, and always use a port number to access web server
>B. So for domainA.com, you have a URL like http://www.domainA.com/, and for
>domain B, you have a URL like http://www.domainB.com:9001/.
>
That sucks! ;-)
>If someone types in www.domainB.com (without the port number), they'll get
>web server A. On server A, you can use WebSTAR's virtual host manager to
>map www.domainB.com to a redirect (raw) file, which will redirect them to
>www.domainB.com:9001. Your NAT server will route this to web server B.
>
>How's that for a workaround?
That would work. Thank you. I think I'll be working on getting a second IP
address for the router though.
thanks again,
-Kirk
Kirk Samuelson Exotype, Inc. http://www.exotype.com
_______________________________________________________________
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The XXII Group http://www.xxii.com
|

Return to Digital Point Solutions' Home Page |