Greetings,
I have a question regarding ip nat inside command which may explain an issue i am facing with a client..
Suppose we have:
ip nat inside source list 101 interface Dialer1 overload
ip nat inside source static 10.0.0.250 87.202.212.131 route-map NO_NAT
ip nat inside source static 10.0.0.20 87.202.212.132 route-map NO_NAT
ip nat inside source static 10.0.0.60 87.202.212.133
ip nat inside source static 10.0.0.11 87.202.212.134
access-list 101 deny ip host 10.0.0.30 any
access-list 101 deny ip 10.254.104.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.146.0 0.0.0.255
access-list 101 deny ip 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 10.254.104.0 0.0.0.255
access-list 101 deny ip 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 10.22.30.0 0.0.1.255
access-list 101 permit ip 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 any
and:
route-map NO_NAT deny 10
match ip address no_nat
!
route-map NO_NAT permit 20
ip access-list extended no_nat
permit ip 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 10.254.104.0 0.0.0.255
permit ip 10.254.104.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.146.0 0.0.0.255
in a configuration where 10.0.0.250 87.202.212.131 is the translation of internal exchange address to public mail ip,
Would the ip nat inside source list 101 interface Dialer1 overload conflict with the 1 to 1 map since the 101 list
includes the 10.0.0.250 address?
I am trying to figure out why the exchange exits via the dialer1 ip instead of the mapped one (which results in spam positives for the
receipients.
SOLVED
