cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
356
Views
0
Helpful
4
Replies

PIX 506 to ASA conversion

JonRM1970
Level 1
Level 1

I have an old PIX 506e that I am replacing out with an ASA5510, and I'm having some issues on the conversion statements.  I have IP Phones that come in from the outside world and get converted to an inside address and a port number ranging from 10021 - 10083. Each access-list and Static nat has one separate line for each port number which makes it extremely bloaty on top of confusing.

 

 

Here is what I have:

 PIX -> access-list PHONES permit udp any any eq 10021

                                    to

            access-list PHONES permit udp any any eq 10083

 

            static (inside,outside) upd interface 10021 10.10.1.4 10021 netmask 255.255.255.255 0 0

                                     to

            static (inside,outside) upd interface 10083 10.10.1.4 10021 netmask 255.255.255.255 0 0

 

 

What I would like to do is use ranges in network objects if it is possible:  Does anyone have an example or a way that this can be done that they would be willing to share with me? I need the object statement, Access-list statement and the NAT.

I think I can use this statement for the port numbers, please correct if wrong:

      object service obj-IPphone-Ports
        service upd source range 10021 10083

 

 

 

Thanks

--Jon

 

 

1 Accepted Solution

Accepted Solutions

Hi ,

The NAT statement needs to change. You cannot use a One-One Static NAT. Instead , you have to use Port Forwarding using the object:-

nat (inside,outside) source static IP-Phones interface service obj-IPphone-Ports obj-IPphone-Ports

ACL is correct.

Thanks and Regards,

Vibhor Amrodia

View solution in original post

4 Replies 4

Vibhor Amrodia
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

Hi,

The Object seems to be correct. You can use this directly in the NAT statement and also in the ACL.

Thanks and Regards,

Vibhor Amrodia

Vibhor,

 What about the Access-list and NAT statements? would the following be correct? This would condence it down from 100 plus statements down to 2 if it is correct and usable.

The IP-Phones is the inside address of the PBX switch I am routing it to.

 

access-list inside_out_in permit object obj-IPphone-Ports any IP-Phones

nat (inside,outside) source static IP-Phones interface

access-group inside_out_in in interface outside

 

-Jon

 

Hi ,

The NAT statement needs to change. You cannot use a One-One Static NAT. Instead , you have to use Port Forwarding using the object:-

nat (inside,outside) source static IP-Phones interface service obj-IPphone-Ports obj-IPphone-Ports

ACL is correct.

Thanks and Regards,

Vibhor Amrodia

Thank you Vibhor.

 

Review Cisco Networking for a $25 gift card