<?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 between SRX and Cisco in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-between-srx-and-cisco/m-p/5125936#M1113361</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;resolved the issue by using 192.168.0.0/24 between cisco switch and the new SRX&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thanks team for responding!&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2024 14:06:14 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Johnson_Mo</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2024-06-05T14:06:14Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>NAT between SRX and Cisco</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-between-srx-and-cisco/m-p/5125419#M1113347</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Cisco warriors, I need help with this please!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have SRX doing proxy-arp 192.168.0.0/16 with directly connected to cat 9300 cisco&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Johnson_Mo_0-1717548929793.png" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.cisco.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/220050iA592AA99DBA82027/image-size/medium?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="Johnson_Mo_0-1717548929793.png" alt="Johnson_Mo_0-1717548929793.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I want to put another SRX in between as a layer 3 for extra security. is there a way to keep the same IP address for the VLANs on cat 9300?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Johnson_Mo_1-1717549315119.png" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.cisco.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/220051i1E77A21239F40CB9/image-size/medium?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="Johnson_Mo_1-1717549315119.png" alt="Johnson_Mo_1-1717549315119.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thanks in advance!&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2024 01:12:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-between-srx-and-cisco/m-p/5125419#M1113347</guid>
      <dc:creator>Johnson_Mo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-06-05T01:12:20Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT between SRX and Cisco</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-between-srx-and-cisco/m-p/5125449#M1113352</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;You can config BVI in new SRX that make SW and old SRX in same subnet and you can put some secuirty in new SRX&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;MHM&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2024 04:29:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-between-srx-and-cisco/m-p/5125449#M1113352</guid>
      <dc:creator>MHM Cisco World</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-06-05T04:29:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT between SRX and Cisco</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-between-srx-and-cisco/m-p/5125452#M1113353</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello&lt;BR /&gt;Why not put the new SRX in transparent mode, thus you keep the addressing as it is but you have the extra security in-between?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2024 04:24:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-between-srx-and-cisco/m-p/5125452#M1113353</guid>
      <dc:creator>paul driver</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-06-05T04:24:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT between SRX and Cisco</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-between-srx-and-cisco/m-p/5125697#M1113358</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;we need to nat Multicast add on the new SRX not on the old one to avoid cpu utilization.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2024 11:04:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-between-srx-and-cisco/m-p/5125697#M1113358</guid>
      <dc:creator>Johnson_Mo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-06-05T11:04:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT between SRX and Cisco</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-between-srx-and-cisco/m-p/5125698#M1113359</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;we need to nat on the new srx so it has to be L3 device. Also, BVI is not supported in SRX only Translational cross connect is supported and required to be in packet mode.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2024 11:23:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-between-srx-and-cisco/m-p/5125698#M1113359</guid>
      <dc:creator>Johnson_Mo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-06-05T11:23:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT between SRX and Cisco</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-between-srx-and-cisco/m-p/5125936#M1113361</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;resolved the issue by using 192.168.0.0/24 between cisco switch and the new SRX&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thanks team for responding!&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2024 14:06:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nat-between-srx-and-cisco/m-p/5125936#M1113361</guid>
      <dc:creator>Johnson_Mo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-06-05T14:06:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

