By PAT and NAT VPN

Similar Questions

• Public static PAT in Nat/Global conflicts

  I seem to have a problem because of a conflict between the static PAT and nat/global pool.

  I have a config with the following static and ACL. (192.169.10.2 and 192.168.10.3 are two address on the same adapter on the same server)

  static (dmz, outside) tcp 212.xx.xx.4 www 192.168.10.2 5080 netmask 255.255.255.255 0 0

  static (dmz, external) 212.xx.xx.5 192.168.10.3 netmask 255.255.255.255 0 0

  line 100 access list 7 permit tcp any host 212.xx.xx.4 eq www

  100-list access line 8 permit tcp any host

  212.XX.XX.5 eq ftp

  line 9 of the access list 100 permit tcp any host 212.xx.xx.5 eq ftp - data

  With this new configuration when I issued the "cl" xlate I outwardly use the site and the FTP site.

  However, as soon as the (192.6.12.2/3) server to connect to the internet the static PAT stops working:

  static (dmz, outside) tcp 212.xx.xx.4 www 192.168.10.2 5080 netmask 255.255.255.255 0 0

  It is interesting the individual static (ftp) continues to work:

  If I do a "show xlate" he mentions a 'Global 212.xx.xx.22 192.168.10.2 Local. " That's probably why it does not work as it comes to take an address from the global pool and is no longer uses 212.xx.xx.4. I don't know why this conflict happens? Any help much appreciated.

  Dan

  Hello Dan,

  Please mark this case as resolved, so that it might help others. response rate (s) If you found it useful.

  Thank you

• Remote access ASA, VPN and NAT

  Hello

  I try to get access to remote VPN work using a Cisco VPN client and ASA with no split tunneling. The VPN works a little, I can access devices inside when I connect, but I can't access the Internet. I don't see any errors in the log ASA except these:

  1 Jul 04:59:15 % ASA-3-305006 gatekeeper: failed to create translation portmap for udp src outside:192.168.47.200/137 dst outside:192.168.47.255/137
  1 Jul 04:59:15 % ASA-3-305006 gatekeeper: failed to create translation portmap for udp src outside:192.168.47.200/54918 dst outsidexx.xxx.xxx.xxx/53

  There is only one address public IP that is assigned to the external interface of DHCP. The Interior is 192.168.1.0/24 network which is PAT'ed to the external interface and the VPN network is 192.168.47.X.

  I think my problem is that the net.47 is not NAT'ed out properly and I don't know how to put in place exactly. I can't understand how this is supposed to work since the net VPN technically provenance from the outside already.

  Here are all the relevant config:

  list of vpn access extended permits all ip 192.168.47.0 255.255.255.0
  Within 1500 MTU
  Outside 1500 MTU
  IP local pool vpnpool 192.168.47.200 - 192.168.47.220 mask 255.255.255.0
  IP verify reverse path to the outside interface
  IP audit info alarm drop action
  IP audit attack alarm drop action
  ICMP unreachable rate-limit 1 burst-size 1
  ICMP allow all outside
  Global interface (2 inside)
  Global 1 interface (outside)
  NAT (inside) 0-list of access vpn
  NAT (inside) 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0
  NAT (outside) 2 192.168.47.0 255.255.255.0 outside
  static (inside, outside) tcp 3074 XBOX360 3074 netmask 255.255.255.255 interface
  static (inside, outside) udp 3074 XBOX360 3074 netmask 255.255.255.255 interface
  public static (inside, outside) udp interface 88 88 XBOX360 netmask 255.255.255.255
  public static tcp (indoor, outdoor) https someids netmask 255.255.255.255 https interface

  I can post more of the configuration if necessary.

  Change ' nat (outside) 2 192.168.47.0 255.255.255.0 apart ' "NAT (2-list of vpn access outdoors outside)" gives these:

  1 Jul 06:18:35 % gatekeeper ASA-3-305005: no group of translation not found for udp src outside:192.168.47.200/56003 dst outside:66.174.95.44/53

  So, how I do right NAT VPN traffic so it can access the Internet?

  A few things that needs to be changed:

  (1) NAT exemption what ACL must be modified to be more specific while the traffic between the internal subnets and subnet pool vpn is not coordinated. NAT exemption takes precedence over all other statements of NAT, so your internet traffic from the vpn does not work.

  This ACL:

  list of vpn access extended permits all ip 192.168.47.0 255.255.255.0

  Should be changed to:

  extensive list of access vpn ip 192.168.47.0 255.255.255.0 allow

  (2) you don't need statement "overall (inside) 2. Here's what to be configured:

  no nat (outside) 2 192.168.47.0 255.255.255.0 outside

  no global interface (2 inside)

  NAT (outside) 1 192.168.47.0 255.255.255.0

  (3) and finally, you must activate the following allow traffic back on the external interface:

  permit same-security-traffic intra-interface

  And don't forget to clear xlate after the changes described above and connect to your VPN.

  Hope that helps.

• client ipSec VPN and NAT on the router Cisco = FAIL

  I have a Cisco 3825 router that I have set up for a Cisco VPN ipSec client.  The same router is NAT.

  ipSec logs, but can not reach the internal network unless NAT is disabled on the inside interface.  But I need both at the same time.

  Suggestions?

  crypto ISAKMP policy 3

  BA 3des

  preshared authentication

  Group 2

  !

  ISAKMP crypto client configuration group myclient

  key password!

  DNS 1.1.1.1

  Domain name

  pool myVPN

  ACL 111

  !

  !

  Crypto ipsec transform-set esp-3des esp-md5-hmac RIGHT

  !

  Crypto-map dynamic dynmap 10

  Set transform-set RIGHT

  market arriere-route

  !

  !
  list of card crypto clientmap client VPN - AAA authentication
  card crypto clientmap AAA - VPN isakmp authorization list
  client configuration address map clientmap crypto answer
  10 ipsec-isakmp crypto map clientmap Dynamics dynmap
  !

  interface Loopback0
  IP 10.88.0.1 255.255.255.0
  !
  interface GigabitEthernet0/0
  / / DESC it's external interface

  IP 192.168.168.5 255.255.255.0
  NAT outside IP
  IP virtual-reassembly
  automatic duplex
  automatic speed
  media type rj45
  clientmap card crypto
  !
  interface GigabitEthernet0/1

  / / DESC it comes from inside interface
  10.0.1.10 IP address 255.255.255.0
  IP nat inside<=================ipSec client="" connects,="" but="" cannot="" reach="" interior="" network="" unless="" this="" is="">
  IP virtual-reassembly
  the route cache same-interface IP
  automatic duplex
  automatic speed
  media type rj45

  !

  IP local pool myVPN 10.88.0.2 10.88.0.10

  p route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.168.1
  IP route 10.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.0.1.4
  !

  IP nat inside source list 1 interface GigabitEthernet0/0 overload
  !
  access-list 1 permit 10.0.0.0 0.0.255.255
  access-list 111 allow ip 10.0.0.0 0.0.255.255 10.88.0.0 0.0.0.255
  access-list 111 allow ip 10.88.0.0 0.0.0.255 10.0.0.0 0.0.255.255

  Hello

  I think that you need to configure the ACL default PAT so there first statemts 'decline' for traffic that is NOT supposed to be coordinated between the local network and VPN pool

  For example, to do this kind of configuration, ACL and NAT

  Note access-list 100 NAT0 customer VPN
  

  access-list 100 deny ip 10.0.1.0 0.0.0.255 10.88.0.0 0.0.0.255
  

  Note access-list 100 default PAT for Internet traffic
  

  access-list 100 permit ip 10.0.1.0 0.0.0.255 ay

  overload of IP nat inside source list 100 interface GigabitEthernet0/0

  
  EDIT: seem to actually you could have more than 10 networks behind the router

  Then you could modify the ACL on this

  Note access-list 100 NAT0 customer VPN
  

  access-list 100 deny ip 10.0.1.0 0.0.255.255 10.88.0.0 0.0.0.255
  

  Note access-list 100 default PAT for Internet traffic
  

  access-list 100 permit ip 10.0.1.0 0.0.255.255 ay

  Don't forget to mark the answers correct/replys and/or useful answers to rate

  -Jouni

• Cisco ASA Site to Site VPN IPSEC and NAT question

  Hi people,

  I have a question about the two Site to Site VPN IPSEC and NAT. basically what I want to achieve is to do the following:

  ASA2 is at HQ and ASA1 is a remote site. I have no problem setting a static static is a Site to IPSEC VPN between sites. Guests residing in 10.1.0.0/16 are able to communicate with hosts in 192.168.1.0/24, but what I want is to configure the NAT with IPSEC VPN for this host to 10.1.0.0/16 will communicate with hosts in 192.168.1.0/24 with translated addresses

  Just an example:

  N2 host (10.1.0.1/16) contacted N1 192.168.1.5 with destination host say 10.23.1.5 No 192.168.1.5 (notice the last byte is the same in the present case,.5)

  The translation still for the rest of the communication (host pings ip destination host 10.23.1.6 N3 N2 not 192.168.1.6 new last byte is the same)

  It sounds a bit confusing to me, but I've seen this type of configuration before when I worked for the supplier of managed services where we have given our customers (Ipsec Site to Site VPN with NAT, don't know how it was setup)

  Basically we contact the customer via site-to-site VPN hosts but their real address were hidden and we used as translated address more high 10.23.1.0/24 instead of (real) 192.168.1.0/24, last byte must be the same.

  Grateful if someone can shed some light on this subject.

  Hello

  OK so went with the old format of NAT configuration

  It seems to me that you could do the following:

  • Configure the ASA1 with static NAT strategy
    • access-list L2LVPN-POLICYNAT allowed ip 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0
    • public static 10.23.1.0 (inside, outside) access-list L2LVPN-POLICYNAT
  • Because the above is a static NAT of the policy, this means that the translation will be made only when the destination network is 10.1.0.0/16
  • If you have for example a PAT basic configuration to inside-> external traffic, the above NAT configuration and the custom of the actual configuration of PAT interfere with eachother
  • ASA2 side, you can normally configure NAT0 / NAT Exemption for the 10.1.0.0/16 network
    • Note of the INTERIOR-SHEEP access-list SHEEP L2LVPN
    • the permitted INSIDE SHEEP 10.1.0.0 ip access list 255.255.0.0 10.23.1.0 255.255.255.0
    • NAT (inside) 0-list of access to the INTERIOR-SHEEP
  • You will need to consider that your access-list defining the VPN encrypted L2L traffic must reflect the new NAT network
    • ASA1: allowed to access-list L2LVPN-ENCRYPTIONDOMAIN ip 10.23.1.0 255.255.255.0 10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0
    • ASA2: list L2LVPN-ENCRYPTIONDOMAIN allowed ip 10.1.0.0 access 255.255.0.0 10.23.1.0 255.255.255.0

  I could test this configuration to work tomorrow but I would like to know if it works.

  Please rate if this was helpful

  -Jouni

• PIX, VPN, PAT and static

  I want to activate an incoming and outgoing VPN on a PIX configured with PAT. I enabled ESP and UDP/500 on the appropriate access to the lists, but must provide a static for inbound traffic. I already use a static for incoming SMTP traffic, and I don't see how to do the same thing for udp/500, but how do I ESP traffic?

  Any suggestions gratefully received.

  If you are referring to a static port, you can create one for ESP since static port can only be created for TCP/UDP and ESP is located just above the intellectual property, it is NOT a TCP/UDP protocol. You will need to create a one-to-one static for this internal VPN server and have your clients to connect to this address. This will chew global IP address to another one, sorry.

• Static and NAT router to router VPN

  Hello

  I have two site VPN using routers. The VPN is fine, BUT - at the end of the seat, the customer has NAT entries static to allow incoming connections - any service that has a NAT static to allow incoming connections from the Internet is inaccessible in the same way. Ping, for example, doesn't have this problem because there is no static NAT entry. I tried to configure a route map-"No. - nat" according to the http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/tech/tk583/tk372/technologies_configuration_example09186a00800949ef.shtml , I thought I was working.

  H.O. has the IP 131.203.64.0/24 and 135.0.0.0/24 (I know, I know - I'm trying to change), and the R.O. 192.168.1.0/24.

  Bits of configuration:

  IP nat inside source overload map route SHEEP interface Ethernet0

  IP nat inside source static tcp 135.0.0.248 131.203.100.27 3389 3389 extensible

  (other static removed)

  Int-E0-In extended IP access list

  ip permit 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 any

  (other entries deleted)

  access-list 198 deny ip 131.203.64.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255

  access-list 198 deny ip 135.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255

  access-list 198 allow ip 135.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 any

  SHEEP allowed 10 route map

  corresponds to the IP 198

  1 remove the static entry for the specified host the VPN problem, but obviously breaks things :(

  2. as mentioned, the VPN itself works fine, I can ping hosts perfectly.

  Any help greatly appreciated :)

  Thank you

  Mike.

  You must use the option of the route to the static NAT map. This is a new feature in 12.2 (4) T according to this page:

  http://www.Cisco.com/univercd/CC/TD/doc/product/software/ios123/123cgcr/ipras_r/ip1_i2g.htm#1079180

  He must do exactly what you want. The old, another way to do is use "The thing", where you create a loopback interface and don't make a nat interface and use routing strategy for routing VPN traffic to one address on the same subnet as the loopback interface, but not the address of the loop. IOS then that réacheminera traffic to the real destination (in this case the remote VPN site), but since now it is not a 'ip nat inside' interface, the static nat translations does not apply and the VPN traffic will not be translated. The problem with this solution is that all loopback traffic is switched to the process, so it is a bit of a hack, but these things are sometimes necessary.

  HTH

• Political L2L NAT and static NAT VPN

  Here's the scenario:  I'm to establish a VPN L2L.  When you try to determine who hosts inside my network access hosts on the remote network through the VPN, I can't get a straight answer from officials.

  My thought was to use a private network of 10.17.24.0/24 and NAT all hosts on my inside the network to 10.17.24.x.  As a side note, the hosts of my inner network can be on any subnet in the beach of 172.12.x.0.  I would then put 10.17.24.0/24 in my interesting traffic for my ACL crypto.  From the hosts inside my network need to browse Internet AND communicate with hosts on the remote network through the VPN, I was going to try to do this with policy NAT. is it possible to use NAT policy in this case?  Or what I need to use static? I start with static but could not navigate the Internet eventually.  I know I'm missing something with the static, but can not understand.  I'm still pretty new to all this stuff so please forgive my ignorance.

  For example:

  
  

  access-list allowed NAT1 host ip 172.21.1.1 REMOTEL2L_SUBNET
  access-list allowed NAT2 host ip 172.21.2.5 REMOTEL2L_SUBNET
  access-list allowed host ip 172.21.15.7 REMOTEL2L_SUBNET VIH3

  static (in, out) 10.17.24.1 access-list NAT1
  static (in, out) 10.17.24.2 access-list NAT2
  static (in, out) 10.17.24.3 access-list VIH3

  The above configuration will be NAT 172.21.1.1 to 10.17.24.1 when you go to the remote subnet (across the L2L).

  The same behavior for other hosts.

  The important thing is that the ACL for crypto will come from the address using a NAT:

  list of allowed VPN ip 10.17.24.1 REMOTEL2L_SUBNET host access
  list of allowed VPN ip 172.17.24.2 REMOTEL2L_SUBNET host access
  list of allowed VPN ip 172.17.24.3 REMOTEL2L_SUBNET host access

  Or just the whole subnet:

  VPN ip 172.17.24.0 access list allow 255.255.255.0 REMOTEL2L_SUBNET

  The important thing is that interesting traffic matches at both ends!

  In addition, you can still provide Internet and local as normally...

  Internet access:

  NAT (inside) 1 172.21.0.0 255.255.0.0

  Global 1 interface (outside)

  It will be useful.

  Federico.

• VPN IPSec with no. - Nat and Nat - No.

  On a 6.3 (5) PIX 515 that I currently have an IPSec VPN configured with no. - nat, using all public IPs internally and on the remote control. Can I add two hosts to the field of encryption that have private IP addresses and NAT to the same public IP in the address card Crypto? What commands would be involved in this?

  Current config:

  -------

  ipsectraffic_boston list of allowed access host ip host PublicIP11 PublicIP1

  ipsectraffic_boston list of allowed access host ip host PublicIP22 PublicIP2

  outside2_outbound_nat0_acl list of allowed access host ip host PublicIP PublicIP

  card crypto mymap 305 correspondence address ipsectraffic_boston
  mymap 305 peer IPAdd crypto card game.
  mymap 305 transform-set ESP-3DES-SHA crypto card game
  life card crypto mymap 305 set security-association seconds 86400 4608000 kilobytes

  ---------

  I would add two IP private to the 'ipsectraffic_boston access-list' and have NAT to a public IP address, as the remote site asks that I don't use the private IP. This would save the effort to add a public IP address to my internal host.

  Thank you

  Dan

  Hello

  If for example you have an internal host 192.168.1.1 and you want NAT public IP 200.1.1.1 it address

  You can make a static NAT:

  (in, out) static 200.1.1.1 192.168.1.1

  And include the 200.1.1.1 in crypto ACL.

  Federico.

• PAT on IPSEC VPN (Pix 501)

  Hello

  I work to connect a PIX 501 VPN for a 3rd party hub 3015. The hub requires all traffic to come from a single source IP address. This IP address is assigned to me as z.z.z.z. I have successfully built the VPN and tested by mapping staticly internal IP with the IP address assigned, but cannot get the orders right to do with PAT in order to have more than one computer on the subnet 10.x.x.0. This Pix is also a backup for internet routing and NAT work currently as well for this.

  I can redirect traffic to my subnet to the remote subnet via the VPN, but I can't seem to get the right stuff PAT to the VPN using the assigned IP address. If anyone can give me some advice that would be great.

  lines of current config interesting configuration with static mapping:

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------

  access-list 101 permit ip 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 y.y.y.0 255.255.255.0

  access-list 102 permit ip y.y.y.0 255.255.255.0 z.z.z.z host

  access-list 103 allow host ip y.y.y.0 255.255.255.0 z.z.z.z

  IP address outside w.w.w.1 255.255.255.248

  IP address inside 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.0

  Global 1 interface (outside)

  NAT (inside) - 0 102 access list

  NAT (inside) 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0 0

  public static z.z.z.z (Interior, exterior) 10.x.x.50 netmask 255.255.255.255 0 0

  Route outside 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 w.w.w.2 1

  correspondence address card crypto mymap 10 103

  mymap outside crypto map interface

  ISAKMP allows outside

  Thank you!

  Dave

  Dave,

  (1) get rid of static electricity. Use more Global/NAT. The static method will create a permanent

  translation for your guests inside and they will always be this way natted. Use

  NAT of politics, on the contrary, as shown here:

  not static (inside, outside) z.z.z.z 10.x.x.50 netmask 255.255.255.255 0 0

  Global (outside) 2 z.z.z.z netmask 255.255.255.255

  (Inside) NAT 2-list of access 101

  (2) the statement, "nat (inside) access 0 2' list will prevent nat of your valuable traffic."

  Delete this because you need to nat 2 nat/global card. (as a general rule, simply you

  If you terminate VPN clients on your device and do not want inside the traffic which

  is intended for the vpn clients to be natted on the external interface).

  (3) with the instructions of Global/nat 2, all traffic destined for the remote network will be first

  translated into z.z.z.z. Then your card crypto using the ACL 103 will encrypt all traffic which

  sources of z.z.z.z for y.y.y.0 24. This translation wil happen only when traffic is destined for the vpn.

  I hope this helps. I have this work on many tunnels as you describe.

  Jamison

• Can I use the address of the public by peers as PAT or NAT address also?

  With the help of an ASA 5505, I've only private local network IPs and a public IP address from my ISP for the address of the peer. Can I use this same internal peers like PAT or NAT for my private IP local IP address?  Remote VPN location policy is to not allow IP addresses private on their local network, so that they want public addresses to me. If possible, could you please show me an example of a config 5505 simple using the following IP addresses? (I need not the IPSec configuration, only the ACL/NAT config)

  I have four hosts who need to access a device at the remote location via an IPSec tunnel.  They are:

  local hosts:

  192.168.2.10, 11, 12, 13

  Say my public address peer is 205.188.15.34 and the remote peer is 175.10.144.52

  remote host:

  168.12.10.6

  Thanks for any help.

  jkeeffe wrote:
  Using an ASA-5505, I only have private IPs on the local LAN and one public IP address from my ISP for the peer address. Can I use that same peer IP address as a PAT or NAT for my internal local private IPs?  The remote VPN location policy is to not allow private IP address on to their local network, so they want public addresses from me. If that is possible, could you please show me a simple 5505 config example using the following IPs? (I don't need the IPSec config, only the ACL/NAT config)
  I have four hosts that need to access a device at the remote location via an IPSec tunnel.  They are:
  local hosts:
  192.168.2.10, 11, 12, 13
  Say my public peer address is 205.188.15.34 and the remote peer is 175.10.144.52
  remote host:
  168.12.10.6
  thanks for any help.
  

  Yes you can do it.

  the localhosts object-group network

  the object-network 192.168.2.10 host

  host of the object-Network 192.168.2.11

  etc...

  list the host 168.12.10.6 ip object-group localhosts allowed VPN access

  NAT (inside) 1 VPN access list

  Global 1 interface (outside)

  Crypto-map list would then look like this-

  VPNTRAFFIC ip host 205.188.15.34 access list permit 168.12.10.6

  One thing to note. The NAT example above is political NAT IE. If the source is-> 13 192.168.2.10 and the destination is 168.12.10.6 then the source to the public IP 205.188.15.34 NAT. However you may already have something like this in your config file-

  NAT (inside) 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0

  Global 1 interface (outside)

  That is to say. you're natting all your addresses private to the public interface address for internet access in general. If you don't have that then there is no need to do NAT policy and you can't miss those lines that source addresses will be Natted anyway.

  the localhosts object-group network

  the object-network 192.168.2.10 host

  host of the object-Network 192.168.2.11

  etc...

  
  

  list the host 168.12.10.6 ip object-group localhosts allowed VPN access

  
  

  NAT (inside) 1 VPN access list

  Global 1 interface (outside)

  Jon

• Public static political static NAT in conflict with NAT VPN

  I have a situation where I need to create a VPN site-to site between an ASA 5505 using IOS 7.2 and a Sonicwall NSA4500. The problem arises where the LAN behind the Cisco ASA has the same subnet an existing VPN currently created on the Sonicwall. Since the Sonicwall cannot have two VPN both run on the same subnet, the solution is to use policy NAT on the SAA as well as for the Sonicwall, the new VPN seems to have a different subnet.

  The current subnet behind the ASA is 192.168.10.0/24 (The Sonicwall already has a private network virtual created for another customer with the same subnet). I try to translate it to 192.168.24.0/24. The peer LAN (behind the Sonicwall) is 10.159.0.0/24. The ASA relevant configuration is:

  interface Vlan1

  IP 192.168.10.1 255.255.255.0

  access extensive list ip 192.168.24.0 outside_1_cryptomap allow 255.255.255.0 10.159.0.0 255.255.255.0

  list of access VPN extended permit ip 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0 10.159.0.0 255.255.255.0

  public static 192.168.24.0 (inside, outside) - list of VPN access

  card crypto outside_map 1 match address outside_1_cryptomap

  In addition, there are other static NAT instructions and their associated ACLs that allow certain traffic through the firewall on the server, for example:

  public static tcp (indoor, outdoor) interface smtp SERVER smtp netmask 255.255.255.255

  The problem is this: when I enter the static strategy statement NAT, I get the message ' WARNING: real-address conflict with existing static "and then it refers to each of the static NAT statements reflecting the external address to the server. I've thought about it, and it seemed to me that the problem was that policy NAT statement must be the first statement of NAT (it is the last one) so that it is run first and all traffic destined to the VPN to the Sonicwall (destination 10.159.0.0/24) tunnel would be properly treated. If I left him as the last statement, then the other static NAT statements would prevent a part of the 10.159.0.0/24 network-bound traffic to be correctly routed through the VPN.

  So, I tried first to my stated policy NAT upward in the ASDM GUI interface. However, moving the declaration was not allowed. Then I tried to delete the five static NAT statements that point to the server (an example is above) and then recreate them, hoping that would then move up the policy statement NAT. This also failed.

  What Miss me?

  Hello

  I assumed that we could have changed the order of the 'static' , the original orders, but as it did not work for some reason any then it seems to me that you suggested or change, that I proposed should work.

  I guess that your purpose was to set up static political PAT for the VPN for some these services, then static PAT of public network access, then static NAT to policy for the rest of the network in-house.

  I guess you could choose any way seems best for you.

  Let me know if get you it working. I always find it strange that the original configuration did not work.

  Remember to mark a reply as the answer if it answered your question.

  Feel free to ask more if necessary

  -Jouni

• 8.4 ASA using NAT VPN issue.

  Hello

  I'm working on a customer site and they have a problem with one of their VPN (we have other works well), but it is a major issue and I think it's because we use manual NAT and NAT of the object on the same server for different things.

  Traffic between indoors and outdoors:

  It works with a specific manual NAT rule of source from the server 10.10.10.10 object

  Inside

  SRC-> DST

  10.10.10.10-> 1.1.2.10 1.1.1.10-> 1.1.2.10 SNAT = VPN =-> 1.1.2.10 1.1.1.10 1.1.1.10-> 1.1.2.10 <3rd party="" fw="">

  It works with a specific using the NAT on the server of 10.10.10.10 object

  Remote

  SRC-> DST

  1.1.1.10-> 1.1.2.10 1.1.1.10-> 1.1.2.10 <3rd party="" fw="">= VPN =-> 1.1.2.10 1.1.1.10 1.1.1.10-> DNAT 10.10.10.10

  If we have the manual NAT and NAT object it does anyway.

  So the question is (as I am new to zip code 8.3 ASA) should not mix the 2 types of NAt and look at configuring it all with manual NAT or NAT object?

  With the NAT object out it does not work as it is taken in ouside NAT inside all:

  Dynamic NAT (inside, outside) source no matter what interface (this NAT to 1.1.1.1 then does not match the card encryption for VPN)

  and I tried a no - nat above that, but that does not work either.

  Straws and hugging come to mind try to configure a different config. Any pointers in the right direction would be great.

  Kind regards

  Z

  Hello

  I'm not sure that installing even with the explanation. Each NAT configuration I did for VPN used Section 1 Manual / NAT twice.

  You have configured the rule by default PAT that you use as Section 1 NAT rule. NAT rules in the new software are divided into 3 sections

  • Section 1: Manual / twice by NAT
  • Section 2: Purpose NAT
  • Section 3: Manual / double NAT (moved to section 3 using the setting "auto after")
  • The Sections are passed by from 1 to 2 and 3 in order to find a match.

  You should also notice that the Section 1 and Section 3 NAT has "line number" similar to the ACL parameter type. So if you have a default existing PAT rule configured for Section 1 and just add another Section 1 NAT rule without line/order number (VPN NAT) then it will just fall under the existing rule, making the new useless rule.

  I would advice against the use of the rule by default PAT as Section 1 NAT rule. Finally, this means that you be constantly watch and edit its configuration when you try to configure more specific rules.

  As a general rule 3 of the Section the PAT above default configuration would be the following

  NAT (inside, outside) after the automatic termination of dynamic source no matter what interface

  This would mean that you need to remove the old. That would mean as naturally as the change would temporarily dismantling all the current connections through "inside", "Outside" while you change the NAT rule format.

  If after this configure a NAT twice to the VPN (wihtout the setting "auto after"), it will be the rule in article 1 while the default PAT will be Section 3. Of course, Section 1 will be matched first.

  I'm not quite sure of what your setup of the foregoing have understood.

  You're just source NAT?

  I guess that the configuration you do is something like this?

  network of the LAN-REAL object

  10.10.10.0 subnet 255.255.255.0

  purpose of the MAPPED in LAN network

  1.1.1.0 subnet 255.255.255.0

  being REMOTE-LAN network

  1.1.2.0 subnet 255.255.255.0

  NAT static destination of LAN LAN-REAL-MAPPED Shared source (indoor, outdoor) REMOTE - LAN LAN

  If the network 1.1.1.0/24 is supposed to be one that is connected directly to your "external" to the format interface may need to be anything else.

  -Jouni

• Cisco and Checkpoint VPN clients on a single PC

  Hello

  I'm in the following fix:

  I had used customer Checkpoint SecuRemote 4.1 SP - 5 VPN in the past.

  Now, I have installed the Cisco VPN client version 4.0.4 on my PC to access IPSec VPN for the PIX in our headquarters.

  According to Cisco VPN release notes http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/vpn/client/rel404/404clnt.htm#wp1346340 , it should be possible to have clients both Cisco and Checkpoint VPN installed on the same machine.

  But I am not able to connect to my PIX, I receive the following error message:

  "Secure the complete VPN connection locally by the Client.

  Reason 403: failed to contact the security gateway. »

  When I'm looking for signs of PC control-> system-> hardware-> device Administration-> network cards, I can see Cisco Systems VPN Adapter disabled.

  After you activate manually, I always get the same error when you try to connect to the Cisco VPN client.

  After PC restart the Cisco VPN adapter is disabled later.

  I tried to uncheck Check Point SecuRemote form my Dial-up connection (bypassing CSCea31192 of bug, but the bug does not affect NAT - T connection which I use).

  I noticed the same situation on three different computers, one running Windows XP, both running Windows 2000.

  After uninstalling the client Checkpoint completely (including Windows registry manual removal), the Cisco VPN client works very well.

  It seems to me, therefore, that there is a profound mismatch between Cisco and Checkpoint VPN clients.

  Does anyone know of a workaround?

  Thank you

  Milan

  We had the same problem with some of our users who need to use the two clients to connect to customer sites.

  If I remember the cisco client does not start automatically, but the client of checkpoint 4.1 don't.

  We by-passed by deleting the registry entry point control that starts the client at startup. fwenc.exe is the entrance and it is in

  HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run

  After that make a shortcut to the executable file that is stored in the directory \bin to relevant checkpoint on the client (it is different from NT & 9 client x) and then only start when it is necessary.

  Hope that's a help

• Ping and PIX VPN

  Hello

  I have a strange problem and I was wondering if anyone has heard before. I have links from site to site with pix Configuration 3 a site works very well but the second remote site with same config (changing the IP etc tho) doesn't seem to work properly. I see the Terminal Services work fine on the remote site, but I cannot ping their internal ip addresses or browse their will. Curiously the remote site cannot ping or search by name or ip no matter what to my site, BUT the Terminal Services from there to here still works?

  Does anyone have an idea?

  Thanks for your time

  Andy

  Is sysopt for IPSEC configured in both places? If this isn't the case, ACL allow traffic in the external interfaces?

  If the remote site can connect to TS on your site? Can it ping the address of the TS Server? Is there an ACL entry that would allow that to happen without the VPN tunnel. It's probably a problem of access list for the match VPN and nat 0.

  Without any ideas of your configs, it is difficult to provide assistance.