The document *here* says "Policy dynamic NAT (nat access-list) — In order, until the first match. Overlapping addresses are allowed."
Now I always thought that meant, the order of the numbers in your NAT statement (as opposed to the order they show in your config). Packet-tracer suggests that I'm wrong, however. So it's really the order of the the policy NAT statements in the config? Is there a way to gracefully re-order these elements without doing a:
The statements above are the order it appears in the config, which is the same as the "show run nat". So...
show run nat
nat (inside) 1 access-list ACL1
nat (inside) 4 access-list ACL4
nat (inside) 3 access-list ACL3
Notice the order of 3 and 4.
So what you're saying is the order the statements appear in the config is what determines what is matched first (which seems to be what's happening). So ACL1, *ACL4* then ACL3 (the order in the config)? As opposed to ACL1, ACL3 then ACL4 (numberical order of the identifier within the NAT statement).
The config is kinda sanitized, so other info might not make sense. But basically the packet-tracer is saying ACL4 is matching. And technically, ACL4 *does* match, so it unfortunately never reaches ACL3.
Now, I know the fix to this. Just delete nat statement 4 and re-add it. But nat statement 4 is super critical to operations. And I wanted confirmation that my thought process was correct, and that there isn't an easier way to re-order the nat statements in the running config besides deleting them (and causing a temporary outage) and re-adding.
Table of ContentsIntroductionVersion HistoryPossible Future
UpdatesDocuments PurposeNAT Operation in ASA 8.3+ SectionsRule Types
Network Object NATTwice NAT / Manual NATRule Types used per SectionNAT
Types used with Twice NAT / Manual NAT and Network Obje...
Table of Contents Introduction:This document describes details on how
NAT-T works. Background: ESP encrypts all critical information,
encapsulating the entire inner TCP/UDP datagram within an ESP header.
ESP is an IP protocol in the same sense that TCP an...