02-08-2005 12:32 PM - edited 02-21-2020 01:35 PM
Hello. I have the following problem with a pair of Cisco 831 routers.
* Each router is connected to an ADSL modem, with a range of fixed static IPs
* Site A (main site) uses dynamic NAT for "normal" internet traffic. There are also several static NAT entries for servers that reside on the LAN.
* Site B connects to site A via a VPN
If Site B connects to a device on the LAN at Site A (via the VPN) this works OK - unless the device also has a static NAT entry.
For example. A device on LAN A has the IP 192.168.1.253 and also has a static NAT of 10.10.135.131. If a device on LAN B pings 192.168.1.253 this does not work. If it pings 10.10.135.133 it does work.
I believe that the replies to the pings in this case are being sent via the dynamic NAT, rather than the VPN.
I hope that this make some sense!! The config is shown below (fake public IPs shown).
Please help!!
ip subnet-zero
no ip source-route
!
no ip bootp server
ip cef table adjacency-prefix validate
ip cef
ip ips notify SDEE
ip ips po max-events 100
no ftp-server write-enable
!
crypto isakmp policy 1
authentication pre-share
group 2
crypto isakmp key MyKeyHere address 10.10.134.170
!
crypto ipsec transform-set ESP-3DES-SHA esp-3des esp-sha-hmac
mode transport
crypto ipsec transform-set test_transform ah-sha-hmac
!
crypto map SDM_CMAP_1 1 ipsec-isakmp
set peer 11.x.x.170
set transform-set test_transform ESP-3DES-SHA
match address 102
!
interface Ethernet0
ip address 192.168.1.254 255.255.255.0
ip access-group 100 in
no ip redirects
no ip unreachables
no ip proxy-arp
ip nat inside
ip virtual-reassembly
ip route-cache flow
!
interface Ethernet1
ip address 10.10.135.135 255.255.255.240
ip access-group 101 in
ip verify unicast reverse-path
no ip redirects
no ip unreachables
no ip proxy-arp
ip nat outside
ip nat allow-static-host
ip inspect DEFAULT100 out
ip virtual-reassembly
service-policy output shape
ip route-cache flow
crypto map SDM_CMAP_1
!
ip classless
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.10.135.129
!
ip http server
no ip http secure-server
ip nat inside source route-map SDM_RMAP_1 interface Ethernet1 overload
ip nat inside source static 192.168.1.253 10.10.135.131
ip nat inside source static 192.168.1.165 10.10.135.133
!
ip access-list extended NormalExternalNATRule
deny ip 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.100.0 0.0.0.255
permit ip 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 any
access-list 1 permit 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255
access-list 100 deny ip 10.10.135.128 0.0.0.15 any
access-list 100 permit ip any any
access-list 101 permit ip 192.168.100.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255
access-list 101 permit udp host 11.x.x.170 host 10.10.135.135 eq non500-isakmp
access-list 101 permit udp host 11.x.x.170 host 10.10.135.135 eq isakmp
access-list 101 permit esp host 11.x.x.170 host 10.10.135.135
access-list 101 permit ahp host 11.x.x.170 host 10.10.135.135
access-list 101 deny ip 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 any
access-list 101 permit tcp any host 10.10.135.131 eq www
access-list 101 permit tcp any host 10.10.135.133 eq ftp
access-list 101 permit tcp any host 10.10.135.133 eq www
access-list 101 permit icmp any host 10.10.135.135 time-exceeded log
access-list 101 permit icmp any host 10.10.135.135 unreachable log
access-list 101 deny ip any any log
!
route-map SDM_RMAP_1 permit 1
match ip address NormalExternalNATRule
02-08-2005 08:17 PM
Hi,
Can you replace the following two commands
ip nat inside source static 192.168.1.253 10.10.135.131
ip nat inside source static 192.168.1.165 10.10.135.133
with
ip nat inside source static 192.168.1.253 10.10.135.131 route-map SDM_RMAP_1
ip nat inside source static 192.168.1.165 10.10.135.133 route-map SDM_RMAP_1
Now let me know if it works.
-Ravikumar
02-09-2005 05:32 AM
Hi Ravikumar,
Thank you for your prompt response.
I have implemented your suggestion and the problem has now partially been resolved.
I can now access the devices by their internal and NAT'ed addresses. However, I found that FTP/HTTP did not work correctly unless I created an access list on the branch Cisco that allows all traffic from the main site to the branch site. It seems that a second session is created using different port numbers which were being blocked by the firewall at the branch site. (see ACL marked **** on the branch config attached). Is this correct?
I now have a slightly different problem. A PC on the branch site connects to an exchange server on the main site (via the VPN). The communication seems OK (ping, etc works OK). But the connection to the Exchange server fails. I have also tried VNC and this also fails. It seems that the connection is either extremely slow and is timing out or that there is something terminating the session.
I have ran an Ethereal trace and found that there are lots of RST packets being sent between the two devices after a short period of conversation. I assume that the session is being terminated for some reason??
Are you able to provide any further advice?
One further query: We have these 831s connected directly to a DSL modem with no external firewall. Do you think the 831 is sufficient to provide protection from the internet (and is my config correct?).
Thanks again
Richard
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