Cisco Support Community
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

A NAT QUESTION - is this sensible?

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

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

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




Re: A NAT QUESTION - is this sensible?

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

and u use the bellow nat line

static (inside, outside)

lets say the inside network is

ant host in the inside network send traffic to will be trnslated to 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

New Member

Re: A NAT QUESTION - is this sensible?

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


Re: A NAT QUESTION - is this sensible?

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

CreatePlease to create content