<?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: post 8.2.4 - 8.4.1 migration nat verification needed in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/post-8-2-4-8-4-1-migration-nat-verification-needed/m-p/1673228#M557547</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hey Dan,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Let's analyze the log line by line:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;INFO: MIGRATION - Saving the startup errors to file&amp;nbsp; 'flash:upgrade_startup_errors_201104162230.log&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The startup errors have been saved on the flash in that file.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;REAL&amp;nbsp; IP MIGRATION: WARNING In this version access-lists used in&amp;nbsp; 'access-group',&amp;nbsp; 'class-map', 'dynamic-filter classify-list', 'aaa&amp;nbsp; match' will be migrated from&amp;nbsp; using IP address/ports as seen on&amp;nbsp; interface, to their real values. If an&amp;nbsp; access-list used by these&amp;nbsp; features is shared with per-user ACL then the original&amp;nbsp; access-list has&amp;nbsp; to be recreated.&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Explanation&lt;/STRONG&gt;: In 8.3 and above, the access-lists use the real ip values, rather than the translated ip addresses. However, for per-user ACLs, you would need to use the original ACL. So basically, the Access-list conversions take place for Access-lists in use by the 4 commands mentioned in line 1. If one of those access-lists is also being used by a per-user ACL, then you would need to create a new access-list and then assign the new name, since the original ACL got converted to real-ip addresses.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Analysis&lt;/STRONG&gt;: If you have per-user ACL' s that were being used in one of those 4 commands, then you need to look into the config. Else it would be fine.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;INFO: Note that identical IP addresses or&amp;nbsp; overlapping IP ranges on&amp;nbsp; different interfaces are not detectable by automated&amp;nbsp; Real IP migration.&amp;nbsp; If your deployment contains such scenarios, please verify&amp;nbsp; your&amp;nbsp; migrated configuration is appropriate for those overlapping&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; addresses/ranges.&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Explanation&lt;/STRONG&gt;: The Migration process is on a best effort basis, and does not consider weird configurations such as "identical IP addresses or&amp;nbsp; overlapping IP ranges on&amp;nbsp; different interfaces."&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Analysis&lt;/STRONG&gt;: If your IP addressing scheme is distinct on each interface, then there is no reason for you to worry.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;*** Output from config line 4,&amp;nbsp; "ASA Version 8.2(4) "&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Explanation&lt;/STRONG&gt;: The current version is 8.4(1), hence it threw an exception here when applying the config.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Analysis&lt;/STRONG&gt;: Nothing to worry. Happens during every upgrade.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;WARNING: MIGRATION: During migration of access-list&amp;nbsp; expanded this&amp;nbsp; object-group ACE permit tcp host 66.199.195.217&amp;nbsp; host 66.199.193.22&amp;nbsp; object-group DM_INLINE_TCP_1&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Explanation&lt;/STRONG&gt;: The DM_INLINE_TCP_1 was expanded, and thus this 1 Access-list Entry (ACE) would have been split into X ACEs, where X is the number of objects in that object-group.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Analysis&lt;/STRONG&gt;: Nothing to worry. Your "show run access-list" will show all entries with ports instead of 1 with object group. If required, you can configure it back to what it was.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;Output from config line 184,&amp;nbsp; "access-group outside_acc..." &lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #ff0000;"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Analysis&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;: Not sure what this is. Did you truncate this part of the log file, or this was how it was shown?? Just see in the "show run access-group" if the access-list is applied to the outside. If it is, then nothing to worry.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;NAT migration logs: The following 'nat' command&amp;nbsp; didn't have a matching&amp;nbsp; 'global' rule on interface 'inside' and was not migrated.&amp;nbsp; nat (inside) 1&amp;nbsp; 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Explanation&lt;/STRONG&gt;: In your previous config you had the above nat command, but no "global(interface_name) &lt;STRONG&gt;1&lt;/STRONG&gt;" command, thus rendering the "nat (inside) 1" useless. Thus the "nat (inside) 1"&amp;nbsp; could not be, and hence was not, migrated.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Analysis&lt;/STRONG&gt;: Nothing to worry.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So that's about it. I think everything should be fine. Don't really see any problem areas.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Best way to know if everything is working fine, is if no one at the site is complaining. &lt;SPAN __jive_emoticon_name="wink" __jive_macro_name="emoticon" class="jive_macro jive_emote" src="https://community.cisco.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif"&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-Shrikant&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;P.S.: Please mark the question as resolved, if it has been answered. Do rate helpful posts. Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:17:07 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Shrikant Sundaresh</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-04-19T00:17:07Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>post 8.2.4 - 8.4.1 migration nat verification needed</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/post-8-2-4-8-4-1-migration-nat-verification-needed/m-p/1673227#M557546</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Migrated our ASA5510 from 8.2.4 to 8.4.1 code over the weekend.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;migration seemed to work fine.&amp;nbsp; I made sure to issue the no nat-control statement prior to upgrading.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;here is part of the 8.2.4 config that includes the only nat statement&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;8.2.4:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;global (Outside) 1 interface&lt;BR /&gt;nat (inside) 1 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0&lt;BR /&gt;access-group outside_access_in in interface Outside&lt;BR /&gt;access-group inside_access_in in interface inside&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;after migration to 8.4.1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;object network obj-10.0.0.0&lt;BR /&gt; nat (inside,Outside) dynamic interface&lt;BR /&gt;access-group outside_access_in in interface Outside&lt;BR /&gt;access-group inside_access_in in interface inside&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;and here is the upgrade_startup_errors log file:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;INFO: MIGRATION - Saving the startup errors to file&amp;nbsp; 'flash:upgrade_startup_errors_201104162230.log' Reading from flash... !!!! REAL&amp;nbsp; IP MIGRATION: WARNING In this version access-lists used in 'access-group',&amp;nbsp; 'class-map', 'dynamic-filter classify-list', 'aaa match' will be migrated from&amp;nbsp; using IP address/ports as seen on interface, to their real values. If an&amp;nbsp; access-list used by these features is shared with per-user ACL then the original&amp;nbsp; access-list has to be recreated. INFO: Note that identical IP addresses or&amp;nbsp; overlapping IP ranges on different interfaces are not detectable by automated&amp;nbsp; Real IP migration. If your deployment contains such scenarios, please verify&amp;nbsp; your migrated configuration is appropriate for those overlapping&amp;nbsp; addresses/ranges. Please also refer to the ASA 8.3 migration guide for a&amp;nbsp; complete explanation of the automated migration process. INFO: MIGRATION -&amp;nbsp; Saving the startup configuration to file INFO: MIGRATION - Startup configuration&amp;nbsp; saved to file 'flash:8_2_4_0_startup_cfg.sav' *** Output from config line 4,&amp;nbsp; "ASA Version 8.2(4) " WARNING: MIGRATION: During migration of access-list&amp;nbsp; expanded this object-group ACE permit tcp host 66.199.195.217&amp;nbsp; host 66.199.193.22 object-group DM_INLINE_TCP_1 *** Output from config line 184,&amp;nbsp; "access-group outside_acc..." NAT migration logs: The following 'nat' command&amp;nbsp; didn't have a matching 'global' rule on interface 'inside' and was not migrated.&amp;nbsp; nat (inside) 1 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 INFO: NAT migration completed. Real IP&amp;nbsp; migration logs: ACL has been migrated to real-ip version&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am just making sure that the upgrade went correctly.&amp;nbsp; I am not sure how to read the output in the log file.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Dan&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 20:22:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/post-8-2-4-8-4-1-migration-nat-verification-needed/m-p/1673227#M557546</guid>
      <dc:creator>daniel.litwin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T20:22:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: post 8.2.4 - 8.4.1 migration nat verification needed</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/post-8-2-4-8-4-1-migration-nat-verification-needed/m-p/1673228#M557547</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hey Dan,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Let's analyze the log line by line:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;INFO: MIGRATION - Saving the startup errors to file&amp;nbsp; 'flash:upgrade_startup_errors_201104162230.log&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The startup errors have been saved on the flash in that file.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;REAL&amp;nbsp; IP MIGRATION: WARNING In this version access-lists used in&amp;nbsp; 'access-group',&amp;nbsp; 'class-map', 'dynamic-filter classify-list', 'aaa&amp;nbsp; match' will be migrated from&amp;nbsp; using IP address/ports as seen on&amp;nbsp; interface, to their real values. If an&amp;nbsp; access-list used by these&amp;nbsp; features is shared with per-user ACL then the original&amp;nbsp; access-list has&amp;nbsp; to be recreated.&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Explanation&lt;/STRONG&gt;: In 8.3 and above, the access-lists use the real ip values, rather than the translated ip addresses. However, for per-user ACLs, you would need to use the original ACL. So basically, the Access-list conversions take place for Access-lists in use by the 4 commands mentioned in line 1. If one of those access-lists is also being used by a per-user ACL, then you would need to create a new access-list and then assign the new name, since the original ACL got converted to real-ip addresses.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Analysis&lt;/STRONG&gt;: If you have per-user ACL' s that were being used in one of those 4 commands, then you need to look into the config. Else it would be fine.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;INFO: Note that identical IP addresses or&amp;nbsp; overlapping IP ranges on&amp;nbsp; different interfaces are not detectable by automated&amp;nbsp; Real IP migration.&amp;nbsp; If your deployment contains such scenarios, please verify&amp;nbsp; your&amp;nbsp; migrated configuration is appropriate for those overlapping&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; addresses/ranges.&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Explanation&lt;/STRONG&gt;: The Migration process is on a best effort basis, and does not consider weird configurations such as "identical IP addresses or&amp;nbsp; overlapping IP ranges on&amp;nbsp; different interfaces."&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Analysis&lt;/STRONG&gt;: If your IP addressing scheme is distinct on each interface, then there is no reason for you to worry.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;*** Output from config line 4,&amp;nbsp; "ASA Version 8.2(4) "&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Explanation&lt;/STRONG&gt;: The current version is 8.4(1), hence it threw an exception here when applying the config.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Analysis&lt;/STRONG&gt;: Nothing to worry. Happens during every upgrade.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;WARNING: MIGRATION: During migration of access-list&amp;nbsp; expanded this&amp;nbsp; object-group ACE permit tcp host 66.199.195.217&amp;nbsp; host 66.199.193.22&amp;nbsp; object-group DM_INLINE_TCP_1&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Explanation&lt;/STRONG&gt;: The DM_INLINE_TCP_1 was expanded, and thus this 1 Access-list Entry (ACE) would have been split into X ACEs, where X is the number of objects in that object-group.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Analysis&lt;/STRONG&gt;: Nothing to worry. Your "show run access-list" will show all entries with ports instead of 1 with object group. If required, you can configure it back to what it was.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;Output from config line 184,&amp;nbsp; "access-group outside_acc..." &lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #ff0000;"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Analysis&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;: Not sure what this is. Did you truncate this part of the log file, or this was how it was shown?? Just see in the "show run access-group" if the access-list is applied to the outside. If it is, then nothing to worry.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;NAT migration logs: The following 'nat' command&amp;nbsp; didn't have a matching&amp;nbsp; 'global' rule on interface 'inside' and was not migrated.&amp;nbsp; nat (inside) 1&amp;nbsp; 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Explanation&lt;/STRONG&gt;: In your previous config you had the above nat command, but no "global(interface_name) &lt;STRONG&gt;1&lt;/STRONG&gt;" command, thus rendering the "nat (inside) 1" useless. Thus the "nat (inside) 1"&amp;nbsp; could not be, and hence was not, migrated.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Analysis&lt;/STRONG&gt;: Nothing to worry.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So that's about it. I think everything should be fine. Don't really see any problem areas.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Best way to know if everything is working fine, is if no one at the site is complaining. &lt;SPAN __jive_emoticon_name="wink" __jive_macro_name="emoticon" class="jive_macro jive_emote" src="https://community.cisco.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif"&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-Shrikant&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;P.S.: Please mark the question as resolved, if it has been answered. Do rate helpful posts. Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:17:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/post-8-2-4-8-4-1-migration-nat-verification-needed/m-p/1673228#M557547</guid>
      <dc:creator>Shrikant Sundaresh</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-04-19T00:17:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

