Static NAT with port translation

Hello All,
I have a server running web application on 443 and now I want to publish it on Internet with static nat and just for port 443, I am thinking that following configuration should be fine, can anyone comment on it.
10.1.1.2:443 10.1.1.1 2.2.2.5
Server -------------------------- ASA --------------------- Internet router --Cloud
Config i am planing
static (inside, outside) tcp 2.2.2.2 443 10.10.10.10 443 netmask 255.255.255.255
Thanks
JD

Thanks Harish and Jouni,
I am using extra Public IP, I want to now why "dns" is the end of access list? I got confuse by at ACL as we I was looking for ASA packet flow:-
A/PIX - Outside (Lower SEC_Level) to Inside (Higher Sec_Lev)
1. FLOW-LOOKUP - [] - Check for existing connections, if none found
create a
new connection.
2. UN-NAT - [static] -
2. ROUTE-LOOKUP - [input] - Initial Checking (Reverse Path Check, etc.)
3. ACCESS-LIST - [log] - ACL Lookup
4. CONN-SETTINGS - [] - class-map, policy-map, service-policy
5. IP-OPTIONS - [] -
6. NAT - [rpf-check] -
7. NAT - [host-limits] -
8. IP-OPTIONS - [] -
9. FLOW-CREATION - [] - If everything passes up until this point a
connection
is created.
10. ROUTE-LOOKUP - [output and adjacency]
access-list OUTSIDE-IN permit tcp any host eq 443 - suggested by you
but if i go by the flow which i come to know it should be like
access-list OUTSIDE-IN permit tcp any host eq 443
What is your opion ?
Thanks
Jagdev

Similar Messages

Static nat with port redirection 8.3 access-list using un-nat port?

I am having difficulty following the logic of the port-translation and hoping someone can shed some light on it. Here is the configuration on a 5505 with 8.3
object network obj-10.1.1.5-06
nat (inside,outside) static interface service tcp 3389 3398
object network obj-10.1.1.5-06
host 10.1.1.5
access-list outside_access_in line 1 extended permit tcp any any eq 3389 (hitcnt=3)
access-group outside_access_in in interface outside
So I would have thought the outside access-list should reference the 'mapped' port but even with 3398 open I cannot remote desktop to the host. If I open 3389 then I can connect successfully. What gives?
Thanks in advance..

Hello,
I would be more than glad to explain you what is going on!
The thing is since 8.3 NAT is reviewed before the acl so, the ASA receives the packet on the outside interface, checks for a existing connection, if there is none it will un-nat the packet and then check the ACL.
After the packet in un-natted what we have is the private ip addresses and the real ports. so that is why on this versions you got to point the ACL to the private ip addresses and ports.
Regards,
Julio
Rate helpful posts

ACE 4710 A3 outbound static NAT with Port redirection

Hi
I have asked this question before, but as I have not get far with it I am going to try to be more specific this time.
I have a server that needs to do an outbound connection to a mail server. The connection has to be initiated to port 26, that then will be NATed to the external IP and port 26 redirected to port 25 for the SMTP connection.
When I try to configure this:
ACE-2/TEST(config-pmap-c)# nat static x.x.x.x netmask 255.255.255.255 tcp eq 23 vlan 99
I get the error: Error: Invalid real port configured for NAT static
Any ideas what it means anyone?

Right. Forget about the previous question. I have an update.
I get this output on show nat policies at the moment:
NAT object ID:39 mapped_if:19 policy_id:50 type:STATIC static_xlate_id:64
ID:64 Static port translation
Real addr:172.21.7.11 Real port:26 Real interface:18
Mapped addr:x.x.x.x Mapped port:25 Mapped interface:19
Netmask:255.255.255.255
where x.x.x.x - is the Public, external IP address on the ACE.
I need the traffic FROM the 172.21.7.11 server going anywhere TO port 26 to be remapped to x.x.x.x port 25. At the moment it does not do it. The service policy on the inside doesn't even get a hit when I am telnetting from the 172.21.7.11 server on port 26 to the outside world. It does get hits when I telnet to x.x.x.x external IP address from outside.
Something is telling me I am looking at it from a wrong direction altogether.
This is the config I have at the moment:
access-list 130 line 20 extended permit ip any any
access-list Source_NAT line 10 extended permit tcp host 172.21.7.11 eq 26 any
class-map match-any Class_Port26
2 match access-list Source_NAT
policy-map multi-match Policy_Port26_Static
class Class_Port26
nat static x.x.x.x netmask 255.255.255.255 tcp eq smtp vlan 99
interface vlan 107
ip address 172.21.7.2 255.255.255.240
peer ip address 172.21.7.1 255.255.255.240
access-group input 130
service-policy input Policy_Port26_Static
no shutdown
No server farms, no load balancing. Just that.
Any ideas?

Port Forwarding with Port Translation RV042, RV016, RV082

This is a feature request for the Linksys RV series Routers. Currently, it appears that the Cisco/Linksys RV042, RV082, and RV016 only support port forwarding and 1-to-1 Nat. One item that I find very helpful with customers is port forwarding with port translation. I am requesting that this feature be included with a future firmware relase for these RV series routers.
Here is an example of the request.
Take an incoming service request on a TCP or UDP destination port and forward it to an internal IP on a different TCP or UDP port. For example, customer A wants to allow different machines on the internal network to receive Windows RDP connections inbound. To make PC maintenance identical between the internal machines, the customer does not want to change the listening port for RDP on the individual PC workstations through the Windows Registry. The customer also does not want to dedicate separate IP's to each machine in a 1-to-1 NAT setup. The only option is to have remote connections to each of these PC's to use a different destination port. So, for example, PC one could be reached on TCP port 5151, PC two on TCP port 5152, and PC three on port 5153. This requres a firewall that is able to translate each of these connection requests to a different internal IP on the default RDP port (TCP 3389). So, the following setup is required:
Port Forwarding with Port Translation:
Router External IP on TCP port 5151 ---> forwarded to PC One's internal IP on TCP 3389
Router External IP on TCP port 5152 ---> forwarded to PC Two's internal IP on TCP 3389
Router External IP on TCP port 5153 ---> forwarded to PC Three's internal IP on TCP 3389
There are several comparable "small business" class router competitors to the RV042, RV082, and RV016 that will perform this port forwarding with port translation process without incident. Unfortunately, these Cisco/Linksys small business routers will not accomplish this task currently.
Please implement this feature in a future firmware release.
Thanks!

Excellent. I see this now. None of our customers actually use the UPNP feature, so we never realized that Port Forwarding with Port Translation features existed on this page along with the ability to enable or disable UPNP.
Perhaps, in the future, this functionality could be moved to and incorporated into the port forwarding page which seems to be a more logical location.
In either case I'm very happy to know that this feature is available on the RV's.
Thanks for your assistance.

Static NAT with two outside interfaces

I have a router, which performs NAT on two outside interfaces with load balancing and had a task to allow inbound connection to be forwarded to the specific host inside on a well known port.
here is example
interface Fas0/0
ip nat outside
interface Fas0/1
ip nat outside
interface Vlan1
ip nat inside
ip nat inside source route-map rm_isp1 pool pool_isp1
ip nat inside source route-map rm_isp2 pool pool_isp2
all worked fine
then i tried to add static nat
ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.1 25 interface Fas0/0 25
ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.1 25 interface Fas0/1 25
and in result only last static NAT line appeared in config.
the solution was to use interface's IPs instead of names. that helped but isn't that a bug?

In this scenario, we are trying to access a mail server located at
10.0.0.1 from outside and we have two outside IP, let's say, 71.1.1.1 and
69.1.1.1.
With CEF Enabled
Packet comes in to Fa0/0 interface with Source IP 66.x.x.x and
Destination IP 71.1.1.1. Our NAT rule translates this to 10.0.0.1.
Packet goes to 10.0.0.1. The return packet goes to the LAN interface
first and the routing rule is determined *before* the packet is
translated.
Packet source IP at this point is 10.0.0.1 and destination is
66.x.x.x. Now, based on CEF, it will go out via Fa0/0 or Fa0/1,
irrespective of the way it came in. Because of this, with CEF enabled
this will not work. CEF is per-destination.
So, let's say somebody on outside tried to access this server using 71.1.1.1, then he would
expect a reply from 71.1.1.1 which may or may not be true as the traffic could be Nat'd to 69.1.1.1 or 71.1.1.1.
If it gets reply packet from 71.1.1.1, it should work.
If it gets it from 69.1.1.1, it will simply drop it as it never sent a
packet to 69.1.1.1.
With CEF and Fast Switching Disabled
Same steps as above, only that the packet is sent to the process level
to be routed. At this point, the packets will be sent out in a round
robin fashion. One packet will go out via the Fa0/0 and the other via the
Fa0/0. This will have a constant 50% packet loss and is also not a
viable solution.
So, what are you trying to achieve is not possible on Cisco router.
HTH,
Amit Aneja

Static nat with dual destination

I need to configure static nat for cisco ASA 5500,
here is the topology:
one server (source) with ip 10.211.250.22 /28 (interface : name if dmz_virtual_account)
will static nat to two destinations :
1. to Internet will translated to 202.152.19.196 (Interface : name if Outside_Inet) and,
2. to external network with real address is 10.10.10.1 and will translated to 192.168.168.14 /29 (interface : name if dmz_external)
Need help
and many thanks for any advice
Regards,
Manao

Hi Marvin
my ASA's software running 8.4
Regards,
Manao

Static NAT with IPSec tunnel

Hi,
I have a hopefully fairly basic question regarding configuring some static NAT entries on a remote site 887 router which also has a IPSec tunnel configured back to our main office. I am fairly new to networking so forgive me if I ask some really silly questions!
I have been asked to configure some mobile phone "boost" boxes, which will take a mobile phone and send the traffic over the Internet - this is required because of the poor signal at the branch. These boxes connect via Ethernet to the local network and need a direct connection to the Internet and also certain UDP and TCP ports opening up.
There is only one local subnet on site and the ACL for the crypto map dictates that all traffic from this network to our head office go over the tunnel. What I wanted to do was create another vlan, give this a different subnet. Assign these mobile boost boxes DHCP reservations (there is no interface to them so they cannot be configured) and then allow them to break out to the Internet locally rather than send the traffic back to our head office and have to open up ports on our main ASA firewall.
From my research I came across this article (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk583/tk372/technologies_configuration_example09186a0080094634.shtml
So I went ahead and created a separate vlan and DHCP reservation and then also followed the guidelines outlined above about using a route-map to stop the traffic being sent down the tunnel and then configured static NAT statements for each of the four ports these boost boxes need to work. I configure the ip nat inside/outside on the relevant ports (vlan 3 for inside, dialer 1 for outside)
The configuration can be seen below for the NAT part;
! Denies vpn interesting traffic but permits all other
ip access-list extended NAT-Traffic
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 172.16.0.0 0.3.255.255
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.128.0 0.0.3.255
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 12.15.28.0 0.0.0.255
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 137.230.0.0 0.0.255.255
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 165.26.0.0 0.0.255.255
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 192.56.231.0 0.0.0.255
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.49.0 0.0.0.255
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.61.0 0.0.0.255
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.240.0 0.0.7.255
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 205.206.192.0 0.0.3.255
permit ip any any
! create route map
route-map POLICY-NAT 10
match ip address NAT-Traffic
! static nat
ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.2 50 85.233.188.47 50 route-map POLICY-NAT extendable
ip nat inside source static udp 192.168.1.2 123 85.233.188.47 123 route-map POLICY-NAT extendable
ip nat inside source static udp 192.168.1.2 500 85.233.188.47 500 route-map POLICY-NAT extendable
ip nat inside source static udp 192.168.1.2 4500 85.233.188.47 4500 route-map POLICY-NAT extendable
Unfortunately this didn't work as expected, and soon after I configured this the VPN tunnel went down. Am I right in thinking that UDP port 500 is also the same port used by ISAKMP so by doing this configuration it effectively breaks IPSec?
Am I along the right lines in terms of configuration? And if not can anyone point me in the direction of anything that may help at all please?
Many thanks in advance
Brian

Hi,
Sorry to bump this thread up but is anyone able to assist in configuration? I am now thinking that if I have another public IP address on the router which is not used for the VPN tunnel I can perform the static NAT using that IP which should not break anything?
Thanks
Brian

Using both Dynamic and Static NAT with two Different Internet facing Subnets

We have two Class C Public Address subnets. We started with Subnet (A) and have many of our Internet accessible devices on it. It is running on a Cisco PIX 515R. We bought a new ASA 5510 8.3(2) and started Migrating the Users and new servers to it so I started with our second Class C Subnet (B). Later on down the road I found out that if the Firewalls Default Gateway is is set to a (B) Interface subnet, then the servers that are statically mapped to a (A) Address will have a (B) address when they communicate out to the internet. So they are receiving packets on their (A) Address, though replying to them with a (B) address.
It was mentioned that I should be able to combine static and dynamic NAT mapping to allow devices behind the firewall to have a fixed external Address when communicating outbound as well as inbound.
So For instance I want the Following: when the Internal Replies I want the reply to come from the mapped IP, not a IP from the Dynamic Pool.
Public IP: 192.168.1.100/24
Internal IP: 10.0.0.100/16
Public IP: 192.168.5.101/24
Internal IP: 10.0.0.101/16
interface Ethernet0/0
description 192.168.1.0/24 Network Outside IP
nameif outside-1
security-level 0
ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
interface Ethernet0/1
description 192.168.5.0/24 Network Outside IP
nameif outside-5
security-level 0
ip address 192.168.5.1 255.255.255.0
interface Ethernet0/2
description inside 10.0.0.0/16
nameif inside
security-level 100
ip address 10.0.0.1 255.255.0.0
object network serverA_o
host 192.168.1.100
object network serverA_i
host 10.0.0.100
object network serverB_o
host 192.168.5.101
object network serverB_i
host 10.0.0.101
object network 192-168-1-NAT-POOL
range 192.168.1.50 192.168.1.239
nat (inside,outside-1) source static serverA_i serverA_o
nat (inside,outside-5) source static serverB_i serverB_o
nat (inside,outside-1) source dynamic any 192-168-1-NAT-POOL interface
object network serverA_i
nat (inside,outside-1) static serverA_o
object network serverB_i
nat (inside,outside-5) static serverB_o
route outside-1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 1
route outside-5 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.5.1 2
When I set this up my serverB shows a Public IP of something in the 192-168-1-NAT-POOL Not 192.168.5.101
Any Suggestions?
Thanks!

Not sure why I have Multiple Entries. )-: I did think it was Odd. I think it might be because I looking at examples of the new and old styles of NAT.
We have a Single ISP, though have 2 separate non-Contiguous Class C Addresses from them. We host some Servers on one subnet and some on the other.
I'm looking for a way to use both Subnets on the same ASA.
The Connection to the net looks like this:
Internet -> Edge Router Layer3 VLAN Switch
GE0/1.2 - 192.168.1.1 VLAN Tagged --> GE0 - VLAN Tagged
GE0/1.2 - 192.168.5.1 VLAN Tagged -^
Layer3 VLAN Switch Firewall
GE1 192.168.1.0/24 Untagged -> ASA Outside-1
GE2 192.168.5.0/24 Untagged -> ASA Outside-5
Firewall
ASA inside 10.0.0.0/16 -> Switch -> 10.0.0.100
Hope that helps clarify.
I could try to post some sanitized Configs of my PIX and ASA if needed. But the end result I'm trying to do is have the ASA do NAT for multiple Public Subnets.

Static NAT to two servers using same port

I have a small office network with a single public IP address. Currently we have a static nat for port 443 for the VPN. We just received new software that requires the server the software is on to be listening on port 443 across the internet. Thus, essentially I need to do natting (port forwarding) using port 443 to two different servers.
I believe that the usual way to accomplish this would be to have the second natting use a different public facing port, natted to 443 on the inside of the network (like using port 80 and 8080 for http). But, if the software company says that it must use port 443, is there any other way to go about this? If, for example, I know the IP address that the remote server will be connecting to our local server on, is there any way to add the source IP address into the rule? Could it work like, any port 443 traffic also from x.x.x.x, forward to local machine 192.168.0.2. Forward all other port 443 traffic not from x.x.x.x to 192.168.0.3.
Any help would be very much appreciated.
Thanks,
- Mike

Hi,
Using the same public/mapped port on software levels 8.2 and below would be impossible. Only one rule could apply. I think the Cisco FWSM accepts the second command while the ASA to my understanding simply rejects the second "static" statement with ERROR messages.
On the software levels 8.3 and above you have a chance to build a rule for the same public/mapped port WHEN you know where the connections to the other overlapping public/mapped port is coming from. This usually is not the case for public services but in your situation I gather you know the source address where connections to this server are going to come from?
I have not used this in production and would not wish to do so. I have only done a simple test in the past for a CSC user. I tested mapping port TCP/5900 for VNC twice while defining the source addresses the connections would be coming from in the "nat" configuration (8.4 software) and it seemed to work. I am not all that certain is this a stable solution. I would imagine it could not be recomended for a production environment setup.
But nevertheless its a possibility.
So you would need the newer software on your firewall but I am not sure what devce you are using and what software its using.
- Jouni

Static Policy NAT in VPN conflicts with Static NAT

I have a situation where I need to create a site-to-site VPN between an ASA 5505 using IOS 7.2 and a Sonicwall NSA4500. The problem arises in that the LAN behind the Cisco ASA has the same subnet as a currently existing VPN created on the Sonicwall. Since the Sonicwall can't have two VPNs both going to the same subnet, the solution is to use policy NAT on the ASA so that to the Sonicwall, the new VPN appears to have a different subnet.
The current subnet behind the ASA is 192.168.10.0/24 (The Sonicwall already has a VPN created to a different client with that same subnet). I am trying to translate that to 192.168.24.0/24. The peer LAN (behind the Sonicwall) is 10.159.0.0/24. The pertinent configuration of the ASA is:
interface Vlan1
ip address 192.168.10.1 255.255.255.0
access-list outside_1_cryptomap extended permit ip 192.168.24.0 255.255.255.0 10.159.0.0 255.255.255.0
access-list VPN extended permit ip 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0 10.159.0.0 255.255.255.0
static (inside,outside) 192.168.24.0 access-list VPN
crypto map outside_map 1 match address outside_1_cryptomap
In addition to this, there are other static NAT statements and their associated ACLs that allow certain traffic through the firewall to the server, e.g.:
static (inside,outside) tcp interface smtp SERVER smtp netmask 255.255.255.255
The problem is this: When I enter the static policy NAT statement, I get the message "Warning: real-address conflict with existing static" and then it refers to each of the static NAT statements that translate the outside address to the server. I thought about this, and it seemed to me that the problem was that the policy NAT statement needed to be the first NAT statement (it is last) so that it would be handled first and all traffic destined for the VPN tunnel to the Sonicwall (destination 10.159.0.0/24) would be correctly handled. If I left it as the last statement, then the other static NAT statements would prevent some traffic destined for the 10.159.0.0/24 network from being correctly routed through the VPN.
So I tried first to move my policy NAT statement up in the ASDM GUI. However, moving that statement was not permitted. Then I tried deleting the five static NAT statements that point to the server (one example is above) and then recreating them, hoping that would then move the policy NAT statement to the top. This also failed.
What am I missing?

Hi,
To be honest it should work in the way I mentioned. I am not sure why it would change the order of the NAT configurations. I have run into this situation on some ASA firewalls running the older software (older than 8.2) and the reordering of the configurations has always worked.
So I am not sure are we looking at some bug or what the problem is.
I was wondering if one solution would be to configure all of the Static NAT / Static PAT as Static Policy NAT/PAT
I have gotten a bit rusty on the older (8.2 and older) NAT configuration format as over 90% of our customer firewalls are running 8.3+ software.
I was thinking of this kind of "static" configuration for the existing Static PAT configurations if you want to try
access-list STATICPAT-SMTP permit tcp host eq smtp any
static (inside,outside) tcp interface smtp access-list STATICPAT-SMTP
access-list STATICPAT-HTTPS permit tcp host eq https any
static (inside,outside) tcp interface https access-list STATICPAT-HTTPS
access-list STATICPAT-RDP permit tcp host eq 3389 any
static (inside,outside) tcp interface 3389 access-list STATICPAT-RDP
access-list STATICPAT-TCP4125 permit tcp host eq 4125 any
static (inside,outside) tcp interface 4125 access-list STATICPAT-TCP4125
access-list STATICPAT-POP3 permit tcp host eq pop3 any
static (inside,outside) tcp interface pop3 access-list STATICPAT-POP3
Naturally you would add the Static Policy NAT for the VPN first.
Again I have to say that I am not 100% sure if this was is the correct format maybe you can test it with a single service that has a Static PAT. For example the Static PAT for RDP (TCP/3389). First entering the Static Policy NAT then removing the Static PAT and then entering the Static Policy PAT.
Remember that you should be able to test the translations with the "packet-tracer" command
For example
packet-tracer input outside tcp 1.1.1.1 12345
- Jouni

Static NAT and IPSec VPN

This maybe stupid but may somebody help on this.
Site A --- Internet --- Site B
An IPSec VPN is implemented between Site A and Site B. Some "nat 0" commands are used on Site A PIX to avoid addresses being translated when communicating with site B.
But now there is a problem, there are several public servers which have static NAT entries by "static" command. And it looks like these entry will still be valid even if the "nat 0" is presenting. And thus those inside IPs which have a static NAT, will be translated once it reaches the PIX and can not go via the VPN tunnel.
May someone advise me how to overcome this? Thanks.

Your question really pertains to the nat order of operations. Nat 0 (nat exemption) is first in the order. It preceeds all other including static nat. The servers you mention will absolutely be included in the nat 0 unless they are specifically denied in the nat 0 acl.

Who needs the ACLs and static NAT?

I came apon a job whose network layout is kind of tricky. Here is the skinny:
2 routers (both 1721s). One is SBCs and it plugs into the internet on WIC interface. Nic interface plugs into a PIX 506E Firewall. The firewall does the PAT. The other eth port on the firewall plugs into the switch. The other router's WIC card plugs into the franchise intranet, and the NIC plugs into the switch.
All the PCs, servers, etc have the default gateway set to the ethernet interface of the franchise 1721. That router looks at the destination address and decides if it needs to go out it's WIC (if the dest. address is on the corporate intranet's subnet) or if it needs to go out to the internet (through the firewall and out the other router).
Now heres what I am trying to accomplish:
The customer wants to be able to telnet into one machine in the private network from her house.
Obviously, I need an ACL on the SBC router because thats where the request is comming from. I also have set up static NAT on the router from a public IP (in our valid range that SBC provides) and the private IP of the machine that she wants to access.
Currently, it is not working. I thought it had something to do with the other router so I started contacting the network engineers at the franchise office to get them to open up their router to allow telnet.
I now think however, that the reason it is not working is I have the static NAT on the wrong device!!
Shouldn't it be on the firewall, because the SBC router doesn't know anything about those private addresses (the PAT happens on the firewall).
Is my hunch right? Can you please advise me on what devices will needs changes in their ACLs and which device(s) will need static NAT mapping? I don't want to open any thing I don't have to. Thanks!!

I just came from the clients office. I am a little lost here. I am quite nifty at the CLI of a router or a switch, but every other firewall I have dealt with (Sonicwall, Watchgaurd, etc) has had a web based GUI. I am new in the field and have never configured a PIX before.
Here's what I have right now:
SBC router is configured to allow Telnet traffic in.
The PIX 506E has PAT configured on it. I tried setting up static NAT with no luck on the firewall. Attached is my running config. Perhaps you could instruct me on a some commands I can throw at this box to make this whole mess work!!
Let 207.184.18.10 be the address of the internal machine we want to access and SERVER.PUBLIC.IP be the public address we should point our telnet client to get in.

Strange static NAT Issue

I am having a strange problem with static NAT. We have BM3.8 SP2 installed on NW Small Business 6.5. The public interface is configured to do both static and dynamic NAT. I have added two secondary IP addresses that are bound to the public interface, and setup the NAT table, using inetcfg, for two different cooresponding private IPs. I setup filters and am able to successfully use these NAT translations through BM as intended. In other words, they work fine. Now the problem. I need to add another static NAT entry. I add the secondary IP and it pings fine from the outside (thanks to a temporary filter for ICMP to/from anywhere). Then I add a new entry in the static NAT table to translate this address to a third unique private side IP. At this point the new secondary IP will no longer ping as before and it is not translating to the private side as the others do. I have exhausted my brain in trying different configurations to get this to work. For example, I have tried with filters down, I have tried adding this third one before the other two, I have tried re-doing all of it, I have tried different secondary IP addresses (public interface is behind a PIX firewall) and even different private side IPs. All still the same non-working result. On the public side I can still ping the other two and their NAT translations work fine. I know for sure that everything is in the correct subnet. If I dump the arp table on a machine sitting on the public side of BM after pinging each of the three secondary IPs they ALL show that they resolve to the ethernet address of the public interface on the BM server. Its like the packets are getting to BM and it is responding, but for some reason it is deciding not to translate it. Finally, as added information, I can ping the third IP using nwping on the server and I can ping it from a private side machine. Is it somehow bound to the wrong side interface? How could this be if BM public is reporting for ARP requests? I have not yet attempted a tcpip debug since the machine is a production machine.
Any ideas? Oh by the way, the translations are for three different VNC servers on the private side of the BM network. Two work fine, but the third will not work! (and yes I tried putting the third secondary IP address translation to one of the two known working private side VNC server machines. No difference). I thought it might be a corrupt TCPIP.CFG file, but I tried on another identical server and it yields the exact same result.

First, your post is unclear to me. What do you mean by the "private device"? I assume you mean the private NIC on the BM server? ... If this is what you mean then I cannot fathom why that would have anything to do with the problem especially since two translations are already working. Hopefully I am missing something here.
Second, Yes - I did do REINITIALIZE SYSTEM. After I making any static NAT table entries and after any filters that I did.
thanks for the reply
>>> D. SKye Hodges<[email protected]> 12/1/2004 2:17:44 PM >>>
check the default gateway on the private device, make sure it is the private ip of the BM server. If so, then reboot the BM server (I assume that you already tried REINITIALIZE SYSTEM). Let us know...
>>> Clayton<[email protected]> 01-Dec-04 10:14:02 >>>
I am having a strange problem with static NAT. We have BM3.8 SP2 installed on NW Small Business 6.5. The public interface is configured to do both static and dynamic NAT. I have added two secondary IP addresses that are bound to the public interface, and setup the NAT table, using inetcfg, for two different cooresponding private IPs. I setup filters and am able to successfully use these NAT translations through BM as intended. In other words, they work fine. Now the problem. I need to add another static NAT entry. I add the secondary IP and it pings fine from the outside (thanks to a temporary filter for ICMP to/from anywhere). Then I add a new entry in the static NAT table to translate this address to a third unique private side IP. At this point the new secondary IP will no longer ping as before and it is not translating to the private side as the others do. I have exhausted my brain in trying different configurations to get this to work. For example, I have tried with filters down, I have tried adding this third one before the other two, I have tried re-doing all of it, I have tried different secondary IP addresses (public interface is behind a PIX firewall) and even different private side IPs. All still the same non-working result. On the public side I can still ping the other two and their NAT translations work fine. I know for sure that everything is in the correct subnet. If I dump the arp table on a machine sitting on the public side of BM after pinging each of the three secondary IPs they ALL show that they resolve to the ethernet address of the public interface on the BM server. Its like the packets are getting to BM and it is responding, but for some reason it is deciding not to translate it. Finally, as added information, I can ping the third IP using nwping on the server and I can ping it from a private side machine. Is it somehow bound to the wrong side interface? How could this be if BM public is reporting for ARP requests? I have not yet attempted a tcpip debug since the machine is a production machine.
Any ideas? Oh by the way, the translations are for three different VNC servers on the private side of the BM network. Two work fine, but the third will not work! (and yes I tried putting the third secondary IP address translation to one of the two known working private side VNC server machines. No difference). I thought it might be a corrupt TCPIP.CFG file, but I tried on another identical server and it yields the exact same result.

Static NAT and same IP address for two interfaces

We have a Cisco ASA 5520 and in order to conserve public IP addresses and configuration (possibly) can we use the same public IP address for a static NAT with two different interfaces? Here is an example of what I'm refering too where 10.10.10.10 would be the same public IP address.
static (inside,Outside) 10.10.10.10 access-list inside_nat_static_1
static (production,Outside) 10.10.10.10 access-list production_nat_static_1
Thanks for any help.
Jeff

Hi Jeff,
Unfortunately this cannot be done, on the ASA packet classification is done on the basis of mac-address, destination nat and route, and here you are confusing the firewall, to which interface does the ip belong to. I haven't ever tried to do it, but it should cause you issues.
Thanks,
Varun Rao
Security Team,
Cisco TAC

Static nat and service port groups

I need some help with opening ports on my ASA using firmware 9.1.2.
I read earlier today that I can create service groups and tie ports to those. But how do I use those instead of using 'object network obj-ExchangeSever-smtp' ?
I have the ACL -
access-list incoming extended permit tcp any object-group Permit-1.1.1.1 interface outside
Can this statement
object network obj-ExchangeSever-smtp
nat (inside,outside) static interface service tcp smtp smtp
reference the service port groups instead?
Thanks,
Andrew

Hi,
Are you looking a way to group all the ports/services you need to allow from the external network to a specific server/servers?
Well you can for example configure this kind of "object-group"
object-group service SERVER-PORTS
service-object tcp destination eq www
service-object tcp destination eq ftp
service-object tcp destination eq https
service-object icmp echo
access-list OUTSIDE-IN permit object-group SERVER-PORTS any object
The above would essentially let you use a single ACL rule to allow multiple ports to a server or a group of servers. (Depending if you use an "object" or "object-group" to tell the destination address/addresses)
I am not sure how you have configured your NAT. Are they all Static PAT (Port Forward) configurations like the one you have posted above or perhaps Static NAT configurations?
You can use the "object network " created for the NAT configuration in the above ACL rule destination field to specify the host to which traffic will be allowed to. Using the "object" in the ACL doesnt tell the ASA the ports however. That needs to be configured in the above way or in your typical way.
Hope this helps
- Jouni

Static NAT with port translation

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for