cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
297
Views
0
Helpful
2
Replies

NAT/PAT with single IP address

blueice7
Level 1
Level 1

Hi all,

Here is a description of my problem:

I have a Cisco 1605-R router with 2 Ethernet ports and 1 serial port.

E0 is connected to the LAN and S0 to the ISP.

IP of E0 = 10.0.0.1

All users on the LAN use the public IP A.B.C.2 when "going out":

ip nat pool userpool A.B.C.2 A.B.C.2 netmask 255.255.255.248

ip nat inside source list 1 pool userpool overload

access-list 1 permit 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.255

I have 2 servers on A.B.C.1 (SMTP) and A.B.C.5 (WWW).

They are statically mapped to 10.0.0.5 and 10.0.0.2, respectively:

ip nat inside source static 10.0.0.2 A.B.C.5

ip nat inside source static 10.0.0.5 A.B.C.1

There is an inbound access-list 130 on S0:

access-list 130 permit tcp any host A.B.C.1 eq smtp

access-list 130 permit tcp any host A.B.C.5 eq www

access-list 130 permit icmp any any

...

Everything is working fine.

Now, as a test, I want to use a single public IP address (A.B.C.6) and PAT to make different services available.

For the sake of simplicity, we'll assume the following for the new servers:

web server IP: 10.0.0.80,

ftp server IP: 10.0.0.21, and

mail server IP: 10.0.0.25.

All servers will be accessed from public IP A.B.C.6.

I tried the following:

ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.21 21 A.B.C.6 21 extendable

ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.25 25 A.B.C.6 25 extendable

ip nat inside source static tcp 10.0.0.80 80 A.B.C.6 80 extendable

access-list 130 permit tcp any host A.B.C.6 eq ftp

access-list 130 permit tcp any host A.B.C.6 eq smtp

access-list 130 permit tcp any host A.B.C.6 eq www

but it did not work.

Can anyone please help me out with this?

Thanks.

2 Replies 2

xzffly
Level 1
Level 1

if only ftp couldn't work,The reason is it need to establish two tcp connections,one for control,other for data transfer.

I suggest,change to inside destination translation.

Actually I only tested WWW and it didn't work.

So, I did not test further.