NAT help

[Wittigo]

How exactly can I figure out what my NAT is, and is it bad if anyone else knows what it is?

Thanks

[Wittigo]

Anyone?

[GQ101]

Network Address Translation, no NAT is actually a very good thing. It translates private IP addresses to outside addresses eg your 192.168.0.0 , 10.0.0.0 or 172.16.0.0 -172.32.0.0 NAT is actually one of the reasons that the internet has not run out of addresses as in the fact that you can take a corporate network of 10000 people and translate there inside addresses to a single outside address using an overload feature.

[smokey]

NAT is an ugly hack designed entirely to extend the life of IPv4, making life easier and cheaper for all those big corporations out there that don't want to implement IPv6, yet. Filthy rats :slapass:

[MethylONE]

Private IP addresses cannot be displayed on the Ineternet. There are three ranges, 10.x.x.x, 127.x.x.x, and 192.168.x.x. Where x is the variable. You must have NAT working if you want to convert a local network address to an Internet address.

If you are looking for your IP address then consult your router if you have one, usually, big guess here, http://192.168.0.0

Locally you can get all your info by opening a command window by using the run command. Use CMD then IPCONFIG /ALL then you will see all your ips.

If you want to see connections to your puter you need netstat, goto run then CMD then NETSTAT -a

[smokey]

127.x.x.x is not a NAT'd range. The only practical IP in that range is 127.0.0.1 (the loopback address). 192.168.0.0 is not a host address, the router would more likely be 192.168.0.1, in that subnet.

[MentholMoose]

Maybe he meant 172... the other range is 172.16.0.0/12.

[masterofpuppets]

NAT sucks. My Linux installation is proudly IPv6 ready (as soon as my stupid ISP upgrades, and my network hardware upgrades).

[sllywhtboy]

check out http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1631.html

[masterofpuppets]

Great, but NAT still sucks despite it's cleverness. I await the day IPv6 becomes mainstream.