03-14-2012 01:19 PM - edited 03-11-2019 03:42 PM
Hey, I have an older ASA which is running Nat-Control. I'm assuming I can turn this feature off without causing any
network related outages. Since as far as I know, all nat-control does, is require a NAT to be configured between
different interfaces on the ASA? I was hoping if I disable this feature, that the NAT between interfaces requirement will not
be an issue anymore, as far as communication between different interfaces.
Solved! Go to Solution.
03-14-2012 02:00 PM
Hi John,
Nat-control requires source NAT for the flows initiated from a higher security-level ( ex. 100/inside ) to a lower security-level (ex 0/outside) . Disabling this will allow you to forward the flows without this requirement. The NAT configuration that is already in place will not be afftected by this.
Regards
Dan
03-14-2012 02:00 PM
Hi John,
Nat-control requires source NAT for the flows initiated from a higher security-level ( ex. 100/inside ) to a lower security-level (ex 0/outside) . Disabling this will allow you to forward the flows without this requirement. The NAT configuration that is already in place will not be afftected by this.
Regards
Dan
03-14-2012 11:25 PM
Hello John,
Great answer by Dan, just to add something else, everything will work the only thing that changes as you point it is that you DO NOT need to have a nat rule to allow traffic between different interfaces but you still NEED the ACLs for traffic flowing from lower to higher security levels,
Have a good one
Do rate all the helpful posts
Julio
03-15-2012 07:08 AM
I did find something interesting, and I believe I have actually read this in a thread on some random side before.
After I turned off nat-control (which happend successfully), When I ran packet-tracer, it was giving me an error,
saying that there was no global NAT for the private network to go to the less secure network so to speak. So
I set up Identity NAT between who hosts in each network and the packet-tracer ran successfully without any
problems. I don't know if this is a guy, or a software version issue.
03-15-2012 08:12 AM
Hi John,
I do not know if packet-tracer takes into account nat-control status when checking the flow permision . My impression is that it does not check it. I have never used packet-tracer with nat-control disabled but I can run a simple test.
Regards
Dan
03-15-2012 11:14 AM
Hi,
(.1) R1 -------10.10.1/24--------- FW ----------10.10.3/24-----------R3 (.1)
===== R1
R1#s ip inter brie | e una
Interface IP-Address OK? Method Status Protocol
FastEthernet1/0 10.10.1.1 YES manual up up
R1#s ip ro | b Gat
Gateway of last resort is 10.10.1.100 to network 0.0.0.0
10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 10.10.1.0 is directly connected, FastEthernet1/0
S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 10.10.1.100
R1#
====== R3
R3#s ip inter brie | e una
Interface IP-Address OK? Method Status Protocol
FastEthernet1/0 10.10.3.1 YES manual up up
R3#s ip ro | b Gat
Gateway of last resort is 10.10.3.100 to network 0.0.0.0
10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 10.10.3.0 is directly connected, FastEthernet1/0
S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 10.10.3.100
R3#
===== FW
pixfirewall# show ip add
System IP Addresses:
Interface Name IP address Subnet mask Method
Ethernet0 outside 10.10.1.100 255.255.255.0 manual
Ethernet1 inside 10.10.3.100 255.255.255.0 manual
pixfirewall# sh run access-g
access-group out in interface outside
pixfirewall# sh run access-l
access-list out extended permit ip any any
-====== TEST 1
R1#ping 10.10.3.1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 10.10.3.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 116/215/376 ms
R1#telnet 10.10.3.1
Trying 10.10.3.1 ... Open
R3#
====== TEST 2
pixfirewall# packet-tracer input outside icmp 10.10.1.1 0 0 10.10.3.1
Phase: 1
Type: CAPTURE
Subtype:
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
MAC Access list
Phase: 2
Type: ACCESS-LIST
Subtype:
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Implicit Rule
Additional Information:
MAC Access list
Phase: 3
Type: FLOW-LOOKUP
Subtype:
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
Found no matching flow, creating a new flow
Phase: 4
Type: ROUTE-LOOKUP
Subtype: input
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
in 10.10.3.0 255.255.255.0 inside
Phase: 5
Type: ACCESS-LIST
Subtype: log
Result: ALLOW
Config:
access-group out in interface outside
access-list out extended permit ip any any
Additional Information:
Phase: 6
Type: IP-OPTIONS
Subtype:
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
Phase: 7
Type: INSPECT
Subtype: np-inspect
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
Phase: 8
Type: FLOW-CREATION
Subtype:
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
New flow created with id 46, packet dispatched to next module
Phase: 9
Type: ROUTE-LOOKUP
Subtype: output and adjacency
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
found next-hop 10.10.3.1 using egress ifc inside
adjacency Active
next-hop mac address ca02.1838.001c hits 41
Result:
input-interface: outside
input-status: up
input-line-status: up
output-interface: inside
output-status: up
output-line-status: up
Action: allow
======= TEST 3
pixfirewall# conf t
pixfirewall(config)#
pixfirewall(config)# nat-control
pixfirewall(config)#
pixfirewall(config)#
pixfirewall(config)#
pixfirewall#packet-tracer input outside icmp 10.10.1.1 0 0 10.10.3.1
Phase: 1
Type: CAPTURE
Subtype:
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
MAC Access list
Phase: 2
Type: ACCESS-LIST
Subtype:
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Implicit Rule
Additional Information:
MAC Access list
Phase: 3
Type: FLOW-LOOKUP
Subtype:
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
Found no matching flow, creating a new flow
Phase: 4
Type: ROUTE-LOOKUP
Subtype: input
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
in 10.10.3.0 255.255.255.0 inside
Phase: 5
Type: ACCESS-LIST
Subtype: log
Result: ALLOW
Config:
access-group out in interface outside
access-list out extended permit ip any any
Additional Information:
Phase: 6
Type: IP-OPTIONS
Subtype:
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
Phase: 7
Type: INSPECT
Subtype: np-inspect
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
Phase: 8
Type: NAT
Subtype: rpf-check
Result: DROP
Config:
nat (inside) 0 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0
nat-control
match ip inside any outside any
no translation group, implicit deny
policy_hits = 0
Additional Information:
Result:
input-interface: outside
input-status: up
input-line-status: up
output-interface: inside
output-status: up
output-line-status: up
Action: drop
Drop-reason: (acl-drop) Flow is denied by configured rule
So packet-tracer consider also nat-control status.
Regards
Dan
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