cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
748
Views
0
Helpful
2
Replies

ASA: Security Level effect on NAT

Scott Cannon
Level 1
Level 1

Hi Guys,

I have an ASA configured with 2 interfaces called DMZa and DMZb. DMZa has Security Level 20 and DMZb has security level 15.

NAT exemption is configured as follows:

nat (DMZa) 1.0.0.0 255.0.0.0

nat (DMZb) 0 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0

Even though an ACE exists permitting access I find I that I am unable to connect to server 1.1.1.1 from DMZb (say client IP is 2.2.2.2) unless I define a static nat rule for the server 1.1.1.1.

As soon as I put the rule static (DMZa,DMZb) 1.1.1.1 1.1.1.1 into the ASA everything works fine

Can someone explain this to me? Shouldnt nat exmpetion be in place given the exemptions rules I put in. And if so, why do I then need to create a static nat rule to get this working?

Thanks in advance

Rgds

Scott

1 Accepted Solution

Accepted Solutions

Jennifer Halim
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

Yes, going from low security level to higher security level, you would need either static NAT statement or NAT exemption.

NAT exemption is NAT 0 with ACL, eg: nat (DMZb) 0 access-list

Your configuration: "nat (DMZb) 0 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0" falls under the dynamic NAT order of operation which is the least priority.

Hope that makes sense.

View solution in original post

2 Replies 2

Jennifer Halim
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

Yes, going from low security level to higher security level, you would need either static NAT statement or NAT exemption.

NAT exemption is NAT 0 with ACL, eg: nat (DMZb) 0 access-list

Your configuration: "nat (DMZb) 0 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0" falls under the dynamic NAT order of operation which is the least priority.

Hope that makes sense.

Thanks Jennnifer, you're right on the money (I actually found this out via a URL you had pr

ovided in an earlier post of mine - thanks heaps)

Cheers

Scott

Review Cisco Networking products for a $25 gift card