<?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: Strange NAT/PAT behavior in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/strange-nat-pat-behavior/m-p/4720517#M1095029</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;as I know from router IOS, the behave as following&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;the traffic port will check if the port is free for interface1 then ok&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;if the port is not free for interface 1 then the IOS will used the second interface and check it port is it free if yes then it will use interface2.&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;and I think this is same in FTD.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 13 Nov 2022 18:48:43 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>MHM Cisco World</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2022-11-13T18:48:43Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Strange NAT/PAT behavior</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/strange-nat-pat-behavior/m-p/4719213#M1094978</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;We want to translate outgoing traffic to a specific public IP based on source interface and then use the outside Interface address as a backup if the PAT pool gets exhausted.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;This is the configuration I’m using for this:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I have created a dynamic auto NAT rule, where I specified the source and destination interface. On the translation TAB, I use the internal addresses as original source and the Public address as translated source. Finally, on the advanced TAB I have enabled the option “Fallthrough to Interface PAT(Destination Interface)”&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The strange thing is that the users are getting the Interface address instead of the address we specified as “translated source” I thought that the option “Fallthrough to Interface PAT(Destination Interface) mean that the interface address would only be used as a backup if the PAT pool gets exhausted. Am I wrong about this?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;/Chess&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2022 09:26:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/strange-nat-pat-behavior/m-p/4719213#M1094978</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chess Norris</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-11-10T09:26:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Strange NAT/PAT behavior</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/strange-nat-pat-behavior/m-p/4720517#M1095029</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;as I know from router IOS, the behave as following&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;the traffic port will check if the port is free for interface1 then ok&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;if the port is not free for interface 1 then the IOS will used the second interface and check it port is it free if yes then it will use interface2.&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;and I think this is same in FTD.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 13 Nov 2022 18:48:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/strange-nat-pat-behavior/m-p/4720517#M1095029</guid>
      <dc:creator>MHM Cisco World</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-11-13T18:48:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

