topic Re: FWSM: no nat-control or nat-control in Network Security

FWSM: no nat-control or nat-control

s.srivas — Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:25:57 GMT

Dear All,

We'r using FWSM with 2.3(4) s/w

We intend to do no nat-control.

However, Version3.2 apparently can do this. How do we enable no nat-control or a similar function on v2.3?

More requirement, ideally we would want no nat control on some dmz1s/out paths and nat control on some dmz2s/out path.

Is this acheivable in both 2.3 and 3.2?

Thanks

Re: FWSM: no nat-control or nat-control

Marwan ALshawi — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:39:25 GMT

instead of playing with nat control do the following

lets say ur dmz1 subnet is 172.16.1.0 /24

and u wanna u se this subnet from the outside interface as there is no nat

do:

static (dmz1, outside) 172.16.1.0 172.16.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0

and then make the permit ACL

because in FWSM not like ASA traffic denied by default even from higher security level to less

and then if u have device on dmz1 with ip 172.16.1.5 u gonna see it from outside as 172.16.1.5

and this can be don between any two interfaces u want

good luck

please, if helpful rate

Re: FWSM: no nat-control or nat-control

s.srivas — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:01:21 GMT

We'r trying to initiate (say ping for now) connections from inside to unknown/dynamically known outsides.

I can use 0.0.0.0 as outside to test. should the (outside, dmz1) work, if reversed?

Does this directional change make any difference. In the mean time i'm going to (again!) test your suggestion.

Re: FWSM: no nat-control or nat-control

Marwan ALshawi — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:49:39 GMT

there another way

also try and see it

let say ur inside network is

192.168.1.0/24

access-list 100 permit ip 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 any

nat (inside) 1 access-list 100

global (outside) 1 192.168.1.1-.192.168.1.254

rate if helpful

Re: FWSM: no nat-control or nat-control

s.srivas — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 07:40:47 GMT

nat (inside) 0

nat (outside) 0

I tried the above and working ok for now.

Will try the suggestion when we need to mix and match.

Thanks you Marwanshawi.

Re: FWSM: no nat-control or nat-control

Marwan ALshawi — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 07:56:21 GMT

i glad its working because when i see the rateing 3 i though didnt

cool:)

Re: FWSM: no nat-control or nat-control

s.srivas — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:10:03 GMT

Thanks, it works with nat0

I'll be trying with nat1 later.

I also have another question, with v2.3, would nat 0 on one FWSM context and nat 1 on another context, but for the same interface/s work?

Re: FWSM: no nat-control or nat-control

Marwan ALshawi — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 01:23:00 GMT

sure u can because they are in defrent context then the source will be deffrent

and the nat policy will work independatly in each context