<?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 nonat access-list versus static mapping in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nonat-access-list-versus-static-mapping/m-p/2426551#M238426</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I am using code level 8.2.5&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;global (dmz) 1 interface&lt;BR /&gt;global (outside) 1 interface&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (dmz) 0 access-list NONAT1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;nat (inside) 0 access-list nonat&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;static (inside,dmz) 10.42.198.176 172.22.196.2 netmask 255.255.255.255&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is in reference to the bold nat command above. The nonat access list is a range of internal subnets in our network. If I use an external access list inbound to the outer ASA interface, can the outside addresses reach the inside address without any issues or do I still have to create a static reference for the inside address even though they are not&amp;nbsp;natted going from the inside interface to the outside interface.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;ex.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list External-in permit ip any host 10.0.0.1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list nonat permit ip 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can address 10.1.1.1 have unrestricted access to 10.0.0.1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 04:12:26 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>gp1200x</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-03-12T04:12:26Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>nonat access-list versus static mapping</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nonat-access-list-versus-static-mapping/m-p/2426551#M238426</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I am using code level 8.2.5&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;global (dmz) 1 interface&lt;BR /&gt;global (outside) 1 interface&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (dmz) 0 access-list NONAT1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;nat (inside) 0 access-list nonat&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;static (inside,dmz) 10.42.198.176 172.22.196.2 netmask 255.255.255.255&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is in reference to the bold nat command above. The nonat access list is a range of internal subnets in our network. If I use an external access list inbound to the outer ASA interface, can the outside addresses reach the inside address without any issues or do I still have to create a static reference for the inside address even though they are not&amp;nbsp;natted going from the inside interface to the outside interface.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;ex.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list External-in permit ip any host 10.0.0.1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list nonat permit ip 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can address 10.1.1.1 have unrestricted access to 10.0.0.1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 04:12:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nonat-access-list-versus-static-mapping/m-p/2426551#M238426</guid>
      <dc:creator>gp1200x</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-12T04:12:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Yes, outside host should have</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nonat-access-list-versus-static-mapping/m-p/2426552#M238427</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Yes, outside host should have unlimited access to the internal host 10.0.0.1 based on the nonat and ACL applied to the outside interface. I am assuming that this is clear text traffic, not via VPN tunnel?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2014 08:17:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nonat-access-list-versus-static-mapping/m-p/2426552#M238427</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jennifer Halim</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-05-19T08:17:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Yes it was for clear text.  I</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nonat-access-list-versus-static-mapping/m-p/2426553#M238432</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Yes it was for clear text.&amp;nbsp; I did a quick test to verify it too...I was getting lazy and didn't really want to set a quick ASA to test. Thanks&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2014 13:36:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nonat-access-list-versus-static-mapping/m-p/2426553#M238432</guid>
      <dc:creator>gp1200x</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-05-19T13:36:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

