<?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- NAT w/multiple Class C in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-nat-w-multiple-class-c/m-p/19055#M654950</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yes, your example will work just fine.  &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The only reason to have more than 1 PAT statement is if you believe the number of connections on that PAT will exceed - say 60,000.  Once one PAT address is used up, the PIX will roll-over to the next available PAT address.  If the first PAT address does not get used up, the PIX will not roll-over.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hope that helps,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;David.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2002 18:23:06 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>David White</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2002-06-05T18:23:06Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>PIX- NAT w/multiple Class C</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-nat-w-multiple-class-c/m-p/19054#M654949</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;greetings&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can i assign 3 non-contiguous class C addresses for one NATed statement?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;ex:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Global (outside) 12 209.92.1.25-209.92.1.250 netmask 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Global (ouside) 12 209.93.1.25-209.92.1.250 netmask 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Global (ouside) 12 209.94.1.25-209.92.1.250 netmask 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Global (outside) 12 209.92.1.24 netmask 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Global (outside) 12 209.93.1.24 netmask 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Global (outside) 12 209.94.1.24 netmask 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside) 12 192.200.0.0 255.255.0.0 0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;* i want to reserve some of the addresses in the front and the back of each block for static mapping. Is this the correct configuration? the 3 PAT statements are there for padding. Do you think 1 PAT would work as well?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the input&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 06:04:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-nat-w-multiple-class-c/m-p/19054#M654949</guid>
      <dc:creator>jdonovan</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-21T06:04:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX- NAT w/multiple Class C</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-nat-w-multiple-class-c/m-p/19055#M654950</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yes, your example will work just fine.  &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The only reason to have more than 1 PAT statement is if you believe the number of connections on that PAT will exceed - say 60,000.  Once one PAT address is used up, the PIX will roll-over to the next available PAT address.  If the first PAT address does not get used up, the PIX will not roll-over.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hope that helps,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;David.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2002 18:23:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-nat-w-multiple-class-c/m-p/19055#M654950</guid>
      <dc:creator>David White</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-06-05T18:23:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

