<?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: PIX -- Static NAT versus NAT+ACL? in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-static-nat-versus-nat-acl/m-p/1634988#M558833</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Unfortunately you can't.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You can only configure 1 NAT exemption statement with ACL, not multiple as what has been posted.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However you can configure the same using the "set connection" command:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="jive-link-external-small" href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/security/asa/asa80/command/reference/s1.html#wp1395546"&gt;http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/security/asa/asa80/command/reference/s1.html#wp1395546&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You can configure different class-map to match different ACL, and apply different "set connection" accordingly.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hope that helps.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2011 21:28:36 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Jennifer Halim</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-04-01T21:28:36Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>PIX -- Static NAT versus NAT+ACL?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-static-nat-versus-nat-acl/m-p/1634985#M558826</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am using a PIX515 to forward a block of public IP addresses to my end users inside. I use an inbound acl on the outside interface to control which services inside are accessible from the outside.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As far as I can see there are two ways to override NAT for the public block:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: courier new,courier;"&gt;Static (inside,outside) 12.34.56.00 12.34.56.00 netmask 255.255.255.0&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;or&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;PRE&gt;access-list nonat extended permit ip 12.34.56.00 255.255.255.0 any&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;PRE&gt;nat (inside) 0 access-list nonat&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;Are there any clear advantages or disadvantages to using either of these methods? Which is preferred?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Many thanks&lt;BR /&gt;Gavin&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/PRE&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 20:15:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-static-nat-versus-nat-acl/m-p/1634985#M558826</guid>
      <dc:creator>gavinfoster</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T20:15:04Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX -- Static NAT versus NAT+ACL?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-static-nat-versus-nat-acl/m-p/1634986#M558829</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;You are correct, either method is fine.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;NAT 0 with ACL is typically used for VPN traffic, and static 1:1 is typically used for normal traffic inbound from the Internet.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However, either method is fine.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:18:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-static-nat-versus-nat-acl/m-p/1634986#M558829</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jennifer Halim</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-03-31T11:18:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX -- Static NAT versus NAT+ACL?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-static-nat-versus-nat-acl/m-p/1634987#M558831</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for your reply.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;A supplementary question, is it possible to have multiple nat exemtions with separate acls?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For example&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;PRE&gt;access-list nonat1 extended permit ip 12.34.56.00 255.255.255.0 any&lt;BR /&gt;nat (inside) 0 access-list nonat1 1000 500&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: courier new,courier;"&gt;access-list nonat2 extended permit ip 21.43.65.00 255.255.255.0 any&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: courier new,courier;"&gt;nat (inside) 0 access-list nonat2&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would like to place a different connection limit and embryonic limit on different subnets....&lt;/P&gt;&lt;PRE&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Gavin&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:37:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-static-nat-versus-nat-acl/m-p/1634987#M558831</guid>
      <dc:creator>gavinfoster</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-03-31T11:37:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX -- Static NAT versus NAT+ACL?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-static-nat-versus-nat-acl/m-p/1634988#M558833</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Unfortunately you can't.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You can only configure 1 NAT exemption statement with ACL, not multiple as what has been posted.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However you can configure the same using the "set connection" command:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="jive-link-external-small" href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/security/asa/asa80/command/reference/s1.html#wp1395546"&gt;http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/security/asa/asa80/command/reference/s1.html#wp1395546&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You can configure different class-map to match different ACL, and apply different "set connection" accordingly.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hope that helps.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2011 21:28:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-static-nat-versus-nat-acl/m-p/1634988#M558833</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jennifer Halim</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-04-01T21:28:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX -- Static NAT versus NAT+ACL?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-static-nat-versus-nat-acl/m-p/1634989#M558835</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Or, alternatively, just use the static NAT statements.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2011 21:29:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-static-nat-versus-nat-acl/m-p/1634989#M558835</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jennifer Halim</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-04-01T21:29:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

