I'm working on network with around a dozen (and growing) remote sites that are all connected to a central site via L2L VPN using ASAs. The remote sites send all traffic (internal and external) through their VPN connection to the central site and Internet access for all the sites is via the central site. Remote users also connect to the network via RA VPN at the central site. So in addition to traffic to/from the inside network at the central site, there's also traffic to a DMZ at the central site and hair-pinning of traffic between remote sites (and between RA VPN connections to remote sites).
Instead of managing a slew of identity NAT statements on different interfaces (inside, dmz, outside, etc.), I was wondering what the pros and cons are of just creating a "global" NAT rule along these lines:
The 192.0.2.10 in my example is an address out of the provider-pool, but not the ASA IP. If possible, I always configure a different address for PAT. You could also use the keyword "interface" to use the ip of the ASA for PAT.
There is no destination in this statement, because it's not a policy-NAT. And yes, without the destination, "any" is used by the ASA.
Login to the FXOS chassis manager.
Direct your browser to https://hostname/, and log-in using the user-name and password.
Go to Help > About and check the current version:
Check the current version availa...
We have configured the outside and inside Interface with official ipv6 adresses, set a default route on outside Interface to our router, we also have definied a rule , which also gets hits, to permit tcp from inside Interface to any6.
In Syslog I also se...