Came upon this a few times recently, wondering if anyone has faced this beforeâ¦
Has anyone noticed that if you make a static nat rule with a route-map exemption it works on certain routers, and ios versions but not on others??? take this config for instanceâ¦.
Ip nat pool verizon 184.108.40.206 220.127.116.11 netmask 255.255.255.240
Ip nat inside source route-map nat pool verizon overload
Ip nat inside source static 10.10.1.2 18.104.22.168 route-map servers-nat extendable
match ip address 101
match ip address 102
access-list 101 deny 10.10.1.0 0.0.0.255 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
access-list 101 permit 10.10.1.0 0.0.0.255 any
access-list 102 deny 10.10.1.0 0.0.0.255 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
access-list 102 permit host 10.10.1.2 any
What is happening is the SERVER at 10.10.1.2 is matching the pool and being natted the pool address instead of its static nat ip.. if I remove the "route-map servers-nat extendable" argument at the end of the static nat, of course it works...
I have the latest IOS on all the routers i'm doing this with...