<?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: Policy NAT Issue in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/policy-nat-issue/m-p/1229572#M859443</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sorry. I wasn't aware of this bug but, I am glad I gave you the work around listed in this bug as a work around.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:16:52 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Kureli Sankar</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2009-06-11T16:16:52Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Policy NAT Issue</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/policy-nat-issue/m-p/1229569#M859425</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I have setup a L2L VPN for a customer in which the vendor requires their IPs to be natted when they come across.  So, I have setup policy nat on their pix for the L2L VPN.  Here is a snip of the NAT config:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list nat-to-vendor permit ip 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0 172.22.1.0 255.255.255.0 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list nat-to-vendor permit ip 192.168.20.0 255.255.255.0 172.22.1.0 255.255.255.0 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list nat-to-vendor permit ip 192.168.30.0 255.255.255.0 172.22.1.0 255.255.255.0 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list nat-to-vendor permit ip 10.4.224.0 255.255.255.0 172.22.1.0 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;global (outside) 100 10.11.46.33-10.11.46.62 netmask 255.255.255.224&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;global (outside) 1 interface&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;global (outside) 2 x.x.x.x&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;global (outside) 3 y.y.y.y&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;global (dmz) 1 interface&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside) 0 access-list nonatvpn&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside) 100 access-list nat-to-vendor 0 0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside) 2 192.168.10.7 255.255.255.255 0 0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside) 3 192.168.10.40 255.255.255.255 0 0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside) 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0 0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The policy nat works, however, once a machine attempts a connection to the vendor using a 172.22.1.x destination address, it can no longer get to the internet.  Checking the xlate table, there are 2 entries for the machine, one for the policy nat (ID 100) and one for the regular nat (ID 1).  And, if I clear the xlate entry for the policy nat, the machine can then get to the internet.  But, one ping to the 172.22.1.x network and internet access is lost.  It is a PIX running 6.3(3).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Am I doing this wrong or does anyone have any other suggestions?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:40:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/policy-nat-issue/m-p/1229569#M859425</guid>
      <dc:creator>f00f1ter</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T15:40:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Policy NAT Issue</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/policy-nat-issue/m-p/1229570#M859431</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would try to replace this below line&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside) 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0 0 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside) 1 access-list www-traffic&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list www-traffic deny ip 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0 172.22.1.0 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list  www-traffic deny ip 192.168.20.0 255.255.255.0 172.22.1.0 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list  www-traffic deny ip 192.168.30.0 255.255.255.0 172.22.1.0 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list  www-traffic deny ip 10.4.224.0 255.255.255.0 172.22.1.0 255.255.255.0 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list www-traffic permit ip any any&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sorry, I am not in a position to try this out in the lab.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Give it a shot and let us know.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-KS&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:46:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/policy-nat-issue/m-p/1229570#M859431</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kureli Sankar</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-06-09T01:46:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Policy NAT Issue</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/policy-nat-issue/m-p/1229571#M859438</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the reply.  However, I found that this issue is a bug in PIX version 6.3.3.  The bug ID is CSCec63822.  The work around is to use policy nat for the internet traffic, or upgrade.  I used the workaround, somewhat similar to what you have proposed, and the issue was resolved.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:59:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/policy-nat-issue/m-p/1229571#M859438</guid>
      <dc:creator>f00f1ter</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-06-11T15:59:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Policy NAT Issue</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/policy-nat-issue/m-p/1229572#M859443</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sorry. I wasn't aware of this bug but, I am glad I gave you the work around listed in this bug as a work around.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:16:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/policy-nat-issue/m-p/1229572#M859443</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kureli Sankar</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-06-11T16:16:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

