Which could also be written: (( 1 followed-by ( 2 or 3 )) followed-by 4
But it very well may also mean:
(1 followed by 2) or (3 followed by 4)
Either way I have to assume the parenthesis are screwed up. Can someone clarify this for me?
Also when this rule is fired I only see in the incident that offset 4 was triggered. Why don't I see the information about what triggered offset 1, followed-by offset 2, and finally followed by offset 4?
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...