<?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: VPN issue  in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/vpn-issue/m-p/1249307#M826957</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Looks like you also need a nat 0 for inside.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list 102 extended permit 10.195.21.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.14.0 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside) 0 access-list 102&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;then fix the net and mask for your other acl...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list 101 extended permit ip 10.195.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.14.0 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside2) 0 access-list 101&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:50:29 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>acomiskey</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2009-09-10T15:50:29Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>VPN issue</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/vpn-issue/m-p/1249306#M826934</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;HI,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;we have using PIX 515E and connected a site to site vpn between headoffice and branch office &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In our PIX we used three interface &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;O/S - X.X.80.5&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I/S - 10.195.21.X -------Vlan 5 in core switch&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I/S 2 - 10.195.1.X ------vlan 6 in core switch&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;the VPN are working between I/S 2 and remote office but when i ping 10.195.21.X its not pinging&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;interface Ethernet1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; nameif inside&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; security-level 100&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; ip address 10.195.21.X 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;interface Ethernet2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; nameif inside2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; security-level 80&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; ip address 10.195.1.X 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;the config is &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list 101 extended permit ip 10.195.0.0 255.255.0.0 192.168.14.0 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list 124 extended permit ip 10.195.0.0 255.255.0.0 192.168.14.0 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;global (outside) 1 interface&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside) 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside2) 0 access-list 101&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside2) 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;whether it will work if i add no nat for inside also &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;or need to some ACL to allow remote network to access inside network&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 16:14:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/vpn-issue/m-p/1249306#M826934</guid>
      <dc:creator>vinoth.kumar</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T16:14:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VPN issue</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/vpn-issue/m-p/1249307#M826957</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Looks like you also need a nat 0 for inside.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list 102 extended permit 10.195.21.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.14.0 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside) 0 access-list 102&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;then fix the net and mask for your other acl...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list 101 extended permit ip 10.195.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.14.0 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside2) 0 access-list 101&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:50:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/vpn-issue/m-p/1249307#M826957</guid>
      <dc:creator>acomiskey</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-09-10T15:50:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VPN issue</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/vpn-issue/m-p/1249308#M826964</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;can i use the same access-list 101 for inside also &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;like nat (inside) 0 access-list 101&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;is any problem using this&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:13:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/vpn-issue/m-p/1249308#M826964</guid>
      <dc:creator>vinoth.kumar</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-09-10T16:13:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VPN issue</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/vpn-issue/m-p/1249309#M826987</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Like this?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list 101 extended permit ip 10.195.0.0 255.255.0.0 192.168.14.0 255.255.255.0 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside) 0 access-list 101&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside2) 0 access-list 101&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yes you can, it should work that way, but it is better to separate them in my opinion.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:17:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/vpn-issue/m-p/1249309#M826987</guid>
      <dc:creator>acomiskey</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-09-10T16:17:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VPN issue</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/vpn-issue/m-p/1249310#M827007</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;is there any specfic reason for seperating the access-list&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:26:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/vpn-issue/m-p/1249310#M827007</guid>
      <dc:creator>vinoth.kumar</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-09-10T16:26:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VPN issue</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/vpn-issue/m-p/1249311#M827040</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;It looks nicer!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:30:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/vpn-issue/m-p/1249311#M827040</guid>
      <dc:creator>acomiskey</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-09-10T16:30:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

