I'm trying to link two networks that grew separately. One is addressed 10.[1-9].x.x, the other 10.[0,1,4].x.x. There's overlap in two networks (10.1.0.0 and 10.4.0.0).
I haven't done much with NATting, and here it seems like it has to be quasi-symmetrical: e.g., if a host on NetA's 10.1.0.0 is trying to get to NetB's 10.1.x.y, we have DNS tell it to address packets to 10.17.x.y, route those to NetB's router, and have it NAT them: 10.17.x.y => 10.1.x.y. Conversely, on the way back, we have our host on NetB 10.1.0.0 address its replies to 10.17.x.y, route them to NetA's router, and have that router NAT them similarly and hand them off to NetA's 10.1.0.0.
My question is, do I need two routers to do this? Cisco seems to see this in terms of "inside" and "outside", and in this case I've got an "inside" on both ends and an "outside" in the middle.
TIA!
I haven't done much with NATting, and here it seems like it has to be quasi-symmetrical: e.g., if a host on NetA's 10.1.0.0 is trying to get to NetB's 10.1.x.y, we have DNS tell it to address packets to 10.17.x.y, route those to NetB's router, and have it NAT them: 10.17.x.y => 10.1.x.y. Conversely, on the way back, we have our host on NetB 10.1.0.0 address its replies to 10.17.x.y, route them to NetA's router, and have that router NAT them similarly and hand them off to NetA's 10.1.0.0.
My question is, do I need two routers to do this? Cisco seems to see this in terms of "inside" and "outside", and in this case I've got an "inside" on both ends and an "outside" in the middle.
TIA!
