<?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 PIX NO NAT in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-no-nat/m-p/617933#M1036254</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;If you write an ACL to be used with a NO NAT statement, does it need to be applied to an interface.  I.e I need to NAT certain traffic, but not NAT certain traffic that has a particular destination&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 09:01:33 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>lquin1978</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-03-11T09:01:33Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>PIX NO NAT</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-no-nat/m-p/617933#M1036254</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;If you write an ACL to be used with a NO NAT statement, does it need to be applied to an interface.  I.e I need to NAT certain traffic, but not NAT certain traffic that has a particular destination&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 09:01:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-no-nat/m-p/617933#M1036254</guid>
      <dc:creator>lquin1978</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T09:01:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX NO NAT</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-no-nat/m-p/617934#M1036259</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;No you dont need apply NONAT ACL to inteface is only used to  bind NONAT ACL and NAT 0 statement&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For example if you want NAT all traffic from inside EXCEPT from 10.10.15.0 to 192.168.1.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list no-nat permit ip 10.10.15.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside) 0 access-list no-nat&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside) 1 10.10.15.0 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;global (outside) 1 public_IP netmask 255.255.255.255&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;NAT 0 means traffic is NOT NATed&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;NAT 1 pairs global 1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;M.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:38:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-no-nat/m-p/617934#M1036259</guid>
      <dc:creator>m.sir</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-11-28T13:38:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX NO NAT</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-no-nat/m-p/617935#M1036266</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;so.. I can write an ACL called 101 with various inside addresses permited to go outside, bind this to the internal interface.  Then write a second ACL called 102 with something like&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list 102 permit ip 10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0 192.168.12.0 255.255.255.0 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;then&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside) 0 access-list 102.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;102 doesnot need to be bound to an interface and it can contain addresses that appear in ACL 101 ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:50:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-no-nat/m-p/617935#M1036266</guid>
      <dc:creator>lquin1978</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-11-28T13:50:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

