<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: NAT - Understanding in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-understanding/m-p/773995#M1021709</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Nat policies have to be designed according to what you want to do...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Remember that access-lists are not especially lminked to nat rules.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Purpose of VLAN is to spare interfaces. 515E has 6 FE. If you don't need 100Mb for your subnet and if you plan to connect many (&amp;gt;6) subnets on thix PIX, I suggest using Vlans...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Gaetan&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:37:31 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>gaetan.allart</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2007-06-25T09:37:31Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>NAT - Understanding</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-understanding/m-p/773994#M1021707</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have been running a PIX 520 with 6.3. Now coding a PIX515E with 7.1. I decided to read a manual &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":winking_face:"&gt;😉&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Now I was amazing at the different NAT and policies.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What is the best way to do things - on my old firewall I just had access lists binded to my interfaces. SHould I continue this or should I use policy NAT style ??&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also with vlan - should I just let the flow of the main interface or is it more secure to create vlan interfaces ??&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for any pointers&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Ed&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2019 00:37:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-understanding/m-p/773994#M1021707</guid>
      <dc:creator>edw</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-26T00:37:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT - Understanding</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-understanding/m-p/773995#M1021709</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Nat policies have to be designed according to what you want to do...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Remember that access-lists are not especially lminked to nat rules.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Purpose of VLAN is to spare interfaces. 515E has 6 FE. If you don't need 100Mb for your subnet and if you plan to connect many (&amp;gt;6) subnets on thix PIX, I suggest using Vlans...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Gaetan&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:37:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-understanding/m-p/773995#M1021709</guid>
      <dc:creator>gaetan.allart</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2007-06-25T09:37:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT - Understanding</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-understanding/m-p/773996#M1021711</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the reply.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm using vlan for the DMZ thou its on one FE. I using a vlan for the public traffic and one for managment - is this correct way to proceed.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So there is no greater security by using policy nat comparared to just binding ACL's to the interface ??&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;At present I have about 3 or 4 vlans inside going through the PIX to public router. I dont have it vlans in the PIX it comes in gets NAT'ed and then leaves without a segragation in terms of vlan. Security wise this is fine...?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Ed&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:09:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-understanding/m-p/773996#M1021711</guid>
      <dc:creator>edw</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2007-06-25T10:09:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT - Understanding</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-understanding/m-p/773997#M1021713</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;NAT is just a way to translate addresses. It will never replace filtering with ACLs.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:07:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-understanding/m-p/773997#M1021713</guid>
      <dc:creator>gaetan.allart</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2007-06-25T11:07:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

