Is double NAT good or bad?

Question

network hardware

Now the network works like this

in the RB1100AHx2 center on it 1 white IP through which the network 172. *. *
. .ХХХ/24 (NAT, DHCP, QOS, FireWall)
respectively, all requests from the client are first loaded on SXT Lite5 and then on RB1100AHx2 is
it worth reconsidering the network scheme? if you make it only in the center, it’s not entirely clear how to distinguish clients from each other + the final number of devices for SXT Lite5 is not known

Answer 1

at least a hundred nats. but it is better to make end-to-end routing. so it's easier to watch the computers.

Answer 2

For IP, double nat is a crutch, for a router it's a load, for an admin it's a mess, for clients it's a shame.
The construction is possible, but routing is always more correct.

Answer 3

For lack of a better one, a double nut will do.
Although this is a crutch, I can say that the whole building has been working on my double nata for the third year already and there are no problems.

Answer 4

As already mentioned, in this case it is better to revise the communication scheme and use routing. The current double NAT scheme will work, but:
1. Using Nat requires more network equipment resources than routing (not critical at all)
2. Confusion. After all, the entire subnet 192.168.*.* will be displayed at the subnet 172.*.*.* as one IP address. Therefore, it will take more time to solve the problems that have arisen in the 192.168.*.* subnet (at least to find out who is to blame)

Answer 5

As one option, configure the SXT Lite5 as wireless bridges and centrally manage the network on the RB1100AHx2. If necessary, isolate clients from each other and limit broadcast traffic.
I don't see any particular problems in the cascading NAT scheme, the load on the client SXT Lite5 processors slightly increases, but this is hardly a problem in this case.