<?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 Port based NAT on pix 506e? in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/port-based-nat-on-pix-506e/m-p/1011776#M941326</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I have Pix sitting between the world and 20 webservers. at the moment my nat rules are simple &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;82.x.x.1 --&amp;gt; 10.179.0.1 /24&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;82.x.x.2 --&amp;gt; 10.179.0.2 /24&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;80/443 allowed anything else dropped&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I want to redirect a couple of IPs to another server.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So if source A is requesting access to 82.x.x.1 can I redirect it to 10.179.0.2?&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 12:13:59 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>cornishgod</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-03-11T12:13:59Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Port based NAT on pix 506e?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/port-based-nat-on-pix-506e/m-p/1011776#M941326</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I have Pix sitting between the world and 20 webservers. at the moment my nat rules are simple &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;82.x.x.1 --&amp;gt; 10.179.0.1 /24&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;82.x.x.2 --&amp;gt; 10.179.0.2 /24&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;80/443 allowed anything else dropped&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I want to redirect a couple of IPs to another server.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So if source A is requesting access to 82.x.x.1 can I redirect it to 10.179.0.2?&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 12:13:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/port-based-nat-on-pix-506e/m-p/1011776#M941326</guid>
      <dc:creator>cornishgod</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T12:13:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Port based NAT on pix 506e?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/port-based-nat-on-pix-506e/m-p/1011777#M941327</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yes, if you used pat...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;static (inside,outside) tcp 82.x.x.1 80 10.179.0.1 80 netmask 255.255.255.255&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;static (inside,outside) tcp 82.x.x.1 443 10.179.0.1 443 netmask 255.255.255.255&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;static (inside,outside) tcp 82.x.x.2 80 10.179.0.2 80 netmask 255.255.255.255&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;static (inside,outside) tcp 82.x.x.2 443 10.179.0.2 443 netmask 255.255.255.255&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;static (inside,outside) tcp 82.x.x.1 &lt;PORT&gt; 10.179.0.2 &lt;PORT&gt; netmask 255.255.255.255&lt;/PORT&gt;&lt;/PORT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;PORT&gt; must be different than 80 or 443.&lt;/PORT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:29:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/port-based-nat-on-pix-506e/m-p/1011777#M941327</guid>
      <dc:creator>acomiskey</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-03-07T16:29:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Port based NAT on pix 506e?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/port-based-nat-on-pix-506e/m-p/1011778#M941328</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thats no good what i'm trying to do is redirect some google servers to one of our more beefier servers&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:33:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/port-based-nat-on-pix-506e/m-p/1011778#M941328</guid>
      <dc:creator>cornishgod</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-03-07T16:33:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Port based NAT on pix 506e?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/port-based-nat-on-pix-506e/m-p/1011779#M941329</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;yes, that can be done very easily, if you have&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;a checkpoint firewalls.  With Checkpoint, you&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;can put in mannual NAT rule, in addition to&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;static NAT.  It can be done in 20 seconds &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;follows by a policy push.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think it can be done with Pix via policy NAT&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;but do not hold me to it.  &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;CCIE Security&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:03:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/port-based-nat-on-pix-506e/m-p/1011779#M941329</guid>
      <dc:creator>cisco24x7</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-03-07T19:03:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Port based NAT on pix 506e?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/port-based-nat-on-pix-506e/m-p/1011780#M941332</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;So if I am right, you want inbound connections to the same global address to be translated to more than one internal host on the same port?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If this is correct, then this is only possible if you are using different ports (as shown in the example given above), otherwise I am afraid this is not possible without a device that can load balance. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 08 Mar 2008 00:14:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/port-based-nat-on-pix-506e/m-p/1011780#M941332</guid>
      <dc:creator>brettmilborrow</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-03-08T00:14:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Port based NAT on pix 506e?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/port-based-nat-on-pix-506e/m-p/1011781#M941334</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;With Checkpoint, the solution is a very simple one:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1- create your static NAT,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2- create a manual NAT above the static NAT&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;as follows:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Source    Dest     Service   translated source   translate_dest &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Source_A  82.x.x.1  80/443    original  192.168.x.1 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;place this NAT rule above the auto nat rule&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;and you will be set.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Easy right?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;CCIE Security&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:51:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/port-based-nat-on-pix-506e/m-p/1011781#M941334</guid>
      <dc:creator>cisco24x7</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-03-08T02:51:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Port based NAT on pix 506e?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/port-based-nat-on-pix-506e/m-p/1011782#M941335</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for all your advice it looks like it cant be done.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Basically google blam one of sites every now and then which kills a webserver - what I would like to have done:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If destination = server x and source = google then goto to server y&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;as server y is much older, slower and serves the same site as server x, so we don't mind if that one goes down. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm looking in to load balancer now any one recommend a good one?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:52:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/port-based-nat-on-pix-506e/m-p/1011782#M941335</guid>
      <dc:creator>cornishgod</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-03-10T09:52:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Port based NAT on pix 506e?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/port-based-nat-on-pix-506e/m-p/1011783#M941337</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cisco have a product called CCS or Content Switch Solution.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would recommend looking at the F5 LTM product as well.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:10:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/port-based-nat-on-pix-506e/m-p/1011783#M941337</guid>
      <dc:creator>brettmilborrow</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-03-10T11:10:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

