A NAT QUESTION - is this sensible?

[peter-net]

I have a server 10.1.2.5 which is on a 10.1.0.0 network and have users located in another network - 192.168.0.0. I need these (192.168) users to be able to reach this server. Assuming that the INSIDE network is the 192.168.0.0 network I assume I want to set-up a static nat translation on this network to enable users in 192.168.0.0 to reach this server. I am assuming that the syntax is going to be “ip nat (inside, outside) 10.1.2.5 192.168.2.5”

This says in plain English “Any requests coming from the inside network ie 192.168.0.0 to the host 10.1.2.5 should be translated to a new host address of 192.168.2.5”.

The request then gets routed to the 192.168 network and is forwarded to the 192.168.2.5 server.

IS THIS SYNTAX CONFIG CORRECT ?

thanks

[Marwan ALshawi]

from above command it looks like ASA or pix

for the static nat

it works tow way

if ur inside network is in subnet 192.168

and outside is 10.1

and u have server in the outside with ip 10.1.2.5

and u use the bellow nat line

static (inside, outside) 10.1.2.5 192.168.2.5

lets say the inside network is 192.168.2.0

ant host in the inside network send traffic to 192.168.2.5 will be trnslated to 10.1.2.5 and sent to that server and vice versa for returne traffic

by the wayt make sure ur trafic not block in or out

good luck

hope this helps

[ciscosrini369]

if u r accessing from inside to dmz then u dont need natting, if its from inside to outside netwrok u have to NAT

--srini

[Marwan ALshawi]

hi guys

if the access fron inside to DMZ nating should be used it nat control enabled on the firewall

static nat work tow ways

if u use nat 0 nat exmption u can exmpt nat

nat identity works one way

and nating with extended ACL works tow ways

regarding that these and ACL to permit traffic

hope this helps