<?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 8.3 object oriented NAT/PAT and address pool use. in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/8-3-object-oriented-nat-pat-and-address-pool-use/m-p/1914471#M437718</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;The only way to overcome this might be to carve out some addresses from that NAT range and set up statics for those internal users who require PPTP outbound access.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Check the xlate table and see if the PPTP users are opening multiple sockets when connecting to their VPN peers. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 14:45:52 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Colin Higgins</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2012-05-04T14:45:52Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>8.3 object oriented NAT/PAT and address pool use.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/8-3-object-oriented-nat-pat-and-address-pool-use/m-p/1914468#M437715</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi, &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Since moving to the new object oriented nat syntax - i have encountered problems with using port address translation from many to many.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;With many thousands of users behind a firewall all passing traffic from inside to outside, I am required to resort to using a pool of external IP addresses, so as not to run out of sockets.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Bit Torrent and other similar apps can cause a world of mess.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;While I can configure port address translation as follows:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;object network PRIMARY_OUT&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; range x.x.x.x x.x.x.x&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;object-group network INSIDE&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; network-object 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (any,Primary) source static INSIDE PRIMARY_OUT&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;While this works there is a single glaring problem that I cannot overcome - irrespective of adding it to the fixup protocol inspection.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When PATing to multiple IP addresses on the outside, PPTP VPNs cease to work.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The only way to overcome this is to PAT to a single overloaded IP address or interface.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Am I doing something wrong? This all worked fine with the old school nat (inside) global (outside) style configuration.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any help or tips would be warmly received.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 23:02:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/8-3-object-oriented-nat-pat-and-address-pool-use/m-p/1914468#M437715</guid>
      <dc:creator>thingywhatnot</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T23:02:04Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 8.3 object oriented NAT/PAT and address pool use.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/8-3-object-oriented-nat-pat-and-address-pool-use/m-p/1914469#M437716</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi, &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You might try to exempt the VPN from being nat-ed&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;object-group network VPN &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;network-object x.x.x.x x.x.x.x&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside,outside) 1 source static INSIDE INSIDE destination static VPN VPN&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Dan&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 10:47:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/8-3-object-oriented-nat-pat-and-address-pool-use/m-p/1914469#M437716</guid>
      <dc:creator>Dan-Ciprian Cicioiu</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-05-04T10:47:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>8.3 object oriented NAT/PAT and address pool use.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/8-3-object-oriented-nat-pat-and-address-pool-use/m-p/1914470#M437717</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I might be being dim, and I also might have failed to relay my question correctly. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The problem is with users behind the firewall - who are NAT'd getting out the internet, who require to use a PPTP VPN to remote sites beyond our firewalls.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Would your recommendation overcome this issue?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 11:01:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/8-3-object-oriented-nat-pat-and-address-pool-use/m-p/1914470#M437717</guid>
      <dc:creator>thingywhatnot</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-05-04T11:01:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>8.3 object oriented NAT/PAT and address pool use.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/8-3-object-oriented-nat-pat-and-address-pool-use/m-p/1914471#M437718</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;The only way to overcome this might be to carve out some addresses from that NAT range and set up statics for those internal users who require PPTP outbound access.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Check the xlate table and see if the PPTP users are opening multiple sockets when connecting to their VPN peers. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 14:45:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/8-3-object-oriented-nat-pat-and-address-pool-use/m-p/1914471#M437718</guid>
      <dc:creator>Colin Higgins</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-05-04T14:45:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>8.3 object oriented NAT/PAT and address pool use.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/8-3-object-oriented-nat-pat-and-address-pool-use/m-p/1914472#M437719</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks Colin, unfortunately I don't think that this is going to be a scalable solution given the nature of the network and userbase.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is a PAT pool singularly incompatible with PPTP passthrough because of the dynamic nature of source/dest port allocation? Also why is this possible when overloading to a single IP address, rather than a pool?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many thanks for your help.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2012 08:54:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/8-3-object-oriented-nat-pat-and-address-pool-use/m-p/1914472#M437719</guid>
      <dc:creator>thingywhatnot</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-05-05T08:54:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

