02-14-2010 06:40 AM - edited 03-11-2019 10:09 AM
I didnt really know how to describe the subject, so here goes.
Using a 6513 to originate SSH connection to a 6509 through a Pix 535. that is what I'm attempting to do.
On Pix, 3 interfaces, outside sec level 0 192.168.15.11 /27, inside sec level 100, 192.168.15.33 /24, and a 3rd interface to be used for "mgmt" sec level 10, 10.10.10.1 /24.
On 6509, 2 physical interfaces 192.168.15.35 /24 and 10.10.10.2 /24.
from the 6513, I can ping to the 6509, thorugh the pix to both destinations.
However, from the 6513 I can only ssh to the 192.168.15.36 address.
I have noted, the following when pinging, using the sho conn on the pix
ping to 192.168.15.35
ICMP outside 192.168.15.10:152 Inside 192.168.15.35:0, idle 0:00:00, bytes 67608
ICMP outside 192.168.15.10:152 Inside 192.168.15.35:0, idle 0:00:00, bytes 67608
ping to 10.10.10.2
ICMP outside 192.168.15.10:153 Inside 10.10.10.2:0, idle 0:00:00, bytes 42336
ICMP outside 192.168.15.10:153 Jump_Mgmt 10.10.10.2:0, idle 0:00:00, bytes 42408
It appears the return traffic is coming back from the 6509 via the default route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.15.33 RATHER than the connected route between the 2 10.10.10.0 /24 interfaces. I see a TCP deny on the inside interface coming from the 6509 (10.10.10.2) which seems would make sense since the traffic didnt originate through the inside interface enroute to the 6509...
i'm not sure how to over come this...
any help would be appreciated...
bruce
Solved! Go to Solution.
02-14-2010 04:34 PM
bruce.summers wrote:
You're a genius!!!!
it worked....that is pretty awesome...
I could replace, in the acl, the "host 10.10.10.2" with the entire /24 subnet, i would think...
thanks
Bruce
Glad you got it working and yes you could use the entire subnet in the PNAT acl if you want to.
Jon
02-14-2010 04:37 PM
thanks for the ideas/specifics and mostly the patience...
It is great when I'm able to confer with guys like you and KS on an issue..
couldnt have done it without ya...
thanks again.
bruce
02-14-2010 04:03 PM
hmmm...now that i look/think about that, that isnt going to work either...its going to nat anything
coming in.....
02-14-2010 07:06 PM
Thanks Jon. Wow ! 25 responses since I last wrote on this thread.
So you all decided to go with outside poicy nat instead of route-map.
That is fine. But why do you think that this is going to nat everything? You tied an ACL to the nat so, only the traffic that matches the ACL will be translated.
Just let us know how things go.
-KS
02-15-2010 05:15 AM
Hi KS,
Naw, Jon got me straight on the policy nat...just my inexperience with it is why i thought that it would nat everything...nice piece of learning on my part
it is now working...thanks for your posts
did you get the points I submitted...I wasnt sure if i could assign points to both you and Jon...
bruce
02-15-2010 05:55 AM
Sure did. Thanks for rating.
Glad it is working.
-KS
02-14-2010 01:15 PM
yes, 10.10.10.2 is a vlan interface...
i tried the config that kusankar provided, and it didnt work...
I'll try the local option...
bruce
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide