<?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 hit count question in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-hit-count-question/m-p/4051610#M1068163</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;For best approach here, if the count not increasing, disable the NAT rule, before doing that check from command level also show nat detail and show xlate count.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2020 20:12:27 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>balaji.bandi</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-03-24T20:12:27Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>NAT hit count question</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-hit-count-question/m-p/4051568#M1068159</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Is the output of the "show nat" command, which shows the number of thits on NAT rules, a reliable counter in the same way that access-list counters are, meaning unless cleared or if the firewall is rebooted, can I count on these hit counts as being an accurate portrayal of what is actually being used? trying to clean up an old firewall with a lot of NAT rules, many show no hit counts since the last reboot.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2020 19:26:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-hit-count-question/m-p/4051568#M1068159</guid>
      <dc:creator>matthewatt</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-03-24T19:26:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT hit count question</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-hit-count-question/m-p/4051610#M1068163</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;For best approach here, if the count not increasing, disable the NAT rule, before doing that check from command level also show nat detail and show xlate count.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2020 20:12:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-hit-count-question/m-p/4051610#M1068163</guid>
      <dc:creator>balaji.bandi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-03-24T20:12:27Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT hit count question</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-hit-count-question/m-p/4051877#M1068184</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; Unless you have a code which has some bugs related to the "hit" counters, each new flow which matches a NAT entry, upon which a new session is created through the device, is gonna increase the "hit" value by 1. So yes, you can use the "hit" counters as a reference to which NAT statements are actively matched by traffic and which do not. If you have a NAT statement for which you don't see hits, try simulating traffic via packet-tracer, matching that NAT statement, you will see the "hit" counter increasing. Use "clear nat counters" first, to start from zero.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cristian Matei.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2020 09:05:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-hit-count-question/m-p/4051877#M1068184</guid>
      <dc:creator>Cristian Matei</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-03-25T09:05:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

