Alternative to NAT ?

soofiahtesham — Mon, 11 Mar 2019 18:36:20 GMT

Hello All

I am using a SA 5520 with the following version

Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance Software Version 8.0(3)

Device Manager Version 6.0(3)

We have a new device which will be used for the multiple video conference ( MCU ) its from lifesize. The issue is it doesn't support the NATTINg feature and I have make the MCU unit public at the same it should also be available to Internet user. When I am trying to use a static route something like

Example:

Router in Building A has public IP 1.1.1.1
Private LAN in Building A is 192.168.1.0/24

Router in Building B has public IP 2.2.2.2
Private LAN in Building B is 192.168.2.0/24

On Router A I put a static route that says:

ip route 192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0 2.2.2.2

and then vice versa on Router B.

Now I'm pretty sure this won't work (and it hasn't in my tests), but I've never really understood why not.

My question is without using the NAT. Is there something out there which can used to change the public - > private and vice versa.

Thanks in advance.

Soofi

Re: Alternative to NAT ?

Nagaraja Thanthry — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 16:47:15 GMT

Hello,

I am not sure what you are trying to achieve. If you are just working on the

routing part, it will certainly work as long as you bypass the NAT on the

firewall (I am assuming that the Router A and Router B are on two different

interfaces of the ASA). Since you are using pre-8.3 code, you can configure

"no nat-control" and the ASA will not impose any NAT requirements.

As far as your first question about Lifesize, I think it does support NAT.

In Lifesize, there is an option to enable/disable NAT support. You need to

disable NAT aware feature (feature that tells Lifesize device to use public

IP when going to internet). Then you configure static NAT on the firewall

along with H.323/SIP inspects. That will make sure that your traffic goes to

internet without any issues.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

topic Re: Alternative to NAT ? in Network Security

Alternative to NAT ?

Re: Alternative to NAT ?