I believe that there are a couple of issues in what you are trying to do. First the route map you are using to do the address translation for the ADSL link is coded like it is doing Policy Based Routing by setting the next hop. To control address translation it should have a match for the access list and a match for the interface (as you do in translation for the other interface) and no set statements.
Also the logic in the route map is flawed in that it has two set statements for next hop. It would execute the first set statement to make the next hop 75 and then would execute the second set statement resulting in the next hop being 209. If your intent is to provide an alternative next hop if one is not working then both addresses need to appear on a single set statement.
Thanks. I will change the route-map and report back, but even so wouldn't that only explain devices behind the router. Why does ping 220.127.116.11 source FA1 not work? I shouldn't need any route-maps/ACL's etc etc to ping out a directly connected interface should I?
We are pleased to announce availability of Beta software for 16.6.3.
16.6.3 will be the second rebuild on the 16.6 release train targeted
towards Catalyst 9500/9400/9300/3850/3650 switching platforms. We are
looking for early feedback from customers befor...
Introduction Featured Speakers Luis Espejel is the Telecommunications
Manager of IENova, an Oil & Gas company. Currently he works with Cisco
IOS® and Cisco IOS XE platforms, and NX to some extent. He has also
worked as a Senior Engineer with the Routing P...
In this session you can learn more about Layer 3 multicast and the best
practices to identify possible threats and take security measures. It
provides an overview of basic multicast, the best security practices for
use of this technology, and recommendati...