03-08-2009 02:26 PM - edited 03-11-2019 08:01 AM
If I have 20 hosts in a subnet and I would like to exempt only 2 hosts from NAT'ing, how can it be acheived in FWSM/ASA.
Thanks.
Solved! Go to Solution.
03-08-2009 02:50 PM
object-group network clients
network-object host 192.168.5.10
network-object host 192.168.5.11
access-list nonat permit ip object-group clients any
nat (inside) 0 access-list nonat
Jon
03-08-2009 02:50 PM
object-group network clients
network-object host 192.168.5.10
network-object host 192.168.5.11
access-list nonat permit ip object-group clients any
nat (inside) 0 access-list nonat
Jon
03-08-2009 03:17 PM
Currently NAT is enabled bidirectionally between OUTSIDE & INSIDE.
If I am configuring NAT exemption for hosts on the outside interface, will NAT 0 command be applied only to outside interface or even inside.
03-09-2009 06:24 AM
Well, I tried applying to both the interfaces, but it is not working.
Please advise.
03-09-2009 06:47 AM
Nat exemption should take precedence over all forms of NAT. Are you trying to exempt addresses as they go from inside to outside or outside to inside.
Also after adding the nat exempt rule did you clear xlate on any existing translations for those hosts ?
Jon
03-09-2009 07:27 AM
I am trying to exempt both ways - bidirectionally across two interfaces i.e. INSIDE and OUTSIDE. How would the NAT exempt configuration be in this case.
Yes, I did clear xlate while testing.
03-09-2009 08:11 AM
Okay, NAT exemption should be bi-directional.. Try this config instead
nat (inside) 0 192.168.5.10 255.255.255.255
nat (inside) 0 192.168.5.11 255.255.255.255
Jon
03-09-2009 10:26 AM
Jon,
Are you suggesting identity nat over nat exemption. If so, why is that.
Please explain why is it only applied to inside interface only and not outside and how will it serve bi-directionally.
Thanks.
03-09-2009 10:34 AM
"Are you suggesting identity nat over nat exemption. If so, why is that"
No, the first solution i gave was just more complicated than it needed to be (i do that sometimes !).
All you want is to just exempt 2 host addresses from NAT so the second example i sent is simply that - 2 nat exemptions.
It only needs to be applied to one interface because it is bi-directional. If it wasn't bi-directional then yes you would need to apply it to both interfaces.
Jon
03-09-2009 11:08 AM
I have tried all the above after clearing specific xlate entry but no success. I will mention my example again
FWSM:
DMZ (Interface) : Security Level 75
OUTSIDE (Interface) : Security Level 0
NATing (bi-directional) is enabled for all hosts on OUTSIDE subnet (10.10.10.0/24) when communicating over DMZ interface. NATed network is 20.20.20.0/24. Now, I would like to exempt 10.10.10.50 and 10.10.10.51 from being NAT'ed to 20.20.20.50 and 20.20.20.51.
The current static NAT entry on FWSM is
static (OUTSIDE,DMZ) 20.20.20.0 10.10.10.0 netmask 255.255.255.0
Thanks.
03-09-2009 11:47 AM
So can you modify the example earlier or have you already tried this ie.
nat (DMZ) 0 10.10.10.50
nat (DMZ) 0 10.10.10.51
Jon
03-09-2009 12:53 PM
I have tried this as well. It defaults to classful subnet i.e. 10.0.0.0 / 16 with nat 0 command. The xlate gets populated with the NAT'ed global and actual local. NAT exemption is not taking place.
Thanks.
03-09-2009 01:57 PM
Sorry, that should have been
nat (DMZ) 0 10.10.10.50 255.255.255.255
nat (DMZ) 0 10.10.10.51 255.255.255.255
Edit - if the above stil doesn't work then the next thing to try is nat on the outside interface ie.
nat (outside) 0 10.10.10.50 255.255.255.255 outside
nat (outside) 0 10.10.10.51 255.255.255.255 outside
Jon
03-10-2009 02:16 PM
Hi Jon,
The NAT issue is still not solved. I have tried both the suggestions above still the same. I then used a sniffer to verify that NAT'ing is still taking place from and to these hosts and not exempted. Seems complicated.
Please assist.
Thanks.
03-10-2009 02:41 PM
Can you post full config of the FWSM.
Jon
Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community: