[Okta Webinar] Learn how to a build a cloud-first strategyRegister Now

x
  • Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 1182
  • Last Modified:

PIX Firewall / Network Address Translation

Got a problem, and I've no clue where to start. (Unfortunately, I'm not the one who gets to make decisions here, they just want me to fix what they break.)

We've got a new Cisco PIX Firewall installed, and it's supposed to be handling our Network Address Translation. (NAT.)  However, it was configured to do Port Address Translation (PAT) on the IP of the PIX's interface.  After awhile, my users would complain to me that they would often try to go to  a website and have to hit "refresh" a number of times before their sites would come up.  I was under the ASSUMPTION that this was because the PAT was running out of ports for all of the users.  We have an address pool ranging from x.x.x.146 (the PIX) to x.x.x.155, with .147 being our mail server.  So I switched the settings on the PIX to do a "Range" from .148 to .155.  This seems to have only caused MORE trouble.  

Anyone have any suggestions?

-Javin
0
Javin007
Asked:
Javin007
  • 5
  • 3
  • 2
  • +1
1 Solution
 
geoffrynCommented:
How many user do you have behind the PIX?  It should take quite a few to exhaust the overloaded PAT address.
0
 
billwhartonCommented:
You are not exactly using PAT very well. What you are doing is using a scope of 7 IP addresses or 7 connections to access the Internet. When these 7 connections are exhausted, that's when you have to press the 'reload' button. Use this statement instead. It will allow you thousands of connections.

Your global command should currently look like this:
global (outside) __ x.x.x.148-x.x.x.155 -> The blank is simply an ID no.

Simply negate this command out and put a new one:
global (outside) __ x.x.x.150 -> Use the same ID no. as you did before.

That's it. Reboot the PIX and ask all your users to try accessing the internet and see if they face any problems.

Do let me know how it goes.
0
 
Javin007Author Commented:
billwharton:

I think I understand what you're saying, and I think it's the same conclusion I came to before.  Doing a "Range" setup actually maps the users to the outside IPs, giving them all ports on an IP mapped to their own.  Thus, 7 IPs = 7 Users online.  

I've switched it back over to "interface PAT" in the meantime, where the ports of the PIX's IP were being utilized for the port address translation.  This brings us back to our original problem.  

Based on what you said, I tried adding each additional IP to the same "pool" (by default, 10) as a PAT IP, and removed the "interface PAT" (which is the PIX's IP).  This gives me the 7 IPs (in theory) running port address translation.  If this IS what you were talking about, and is what I should do, let me know.

The thing that bothers me about this whole thing, is that I understand that each hit to a webpage can make up to half a dozen connections, and those connections can hang on for 2-15 minutes.  But would you REALLY be likely to run out of ports for translation, even with one IP, with only 40 users on the network?

-Javin
0
New Tabletop Appliances Blow Competitors Away!

WatchGuard’s new T15, T35 and T55 tabletop UTMs provide the highest-performing security inspection in their class, allowing users at small offices, home offices and distributed enterprises to experience blazing-fast Internet speeds without sacrificing enterprise-grade security.

 
tpaccCommented:
Well, I don't exactly understand your last post completely.

Are you comfortable using interface PAT for the long term? There is no reason why you should. Hence, you can simply forget about ip to ip nat since that isin't needed in this place.

Interface PAT should not give you any problems. I've had environments running more than 10,000 connections on a PIX 515 using just one IP.
0
 
tpaccCommented:
Javin

The posting by tpacc was actually authored by me. You can reply to it.
0
 
Javin007Author Commented:
Well, thus far, interface PAT has given us issues that we didn't have before (on the old network) when doing network address translation (NAT) through software.  

It didn't make sense to me that 40 users would crowd out all the connections on Interface PAT to start with, but either way, we're running into this issue.  And the issue has ONLY come about since installing the PIX, and ONLY happens when there are a "lot" of users online at once.  The question here is how to fix the problem, whatever it may be.  Do you have any suggestion for troubleshooting that I can use to chase down the issue?

-Javin
0
 
billwhartonCommented:
try the 'show xlate' command when users complain and see how many connections do you see in there.

Also try 'show cpu usage'
0
 
Javin007Author Commented:
Remember that I'm not using the terminal connection, but I'm using the PIX GUI.

-Javin
0
 
billwhartonCommented:
No problem
in PDM, you have a section called 'monitoring'
Click on that and you would find multiple options on left including System graphs -> CPU and Connection graphs -> xlates

Check all of those to see the PIX is running fine.
0
 
Javin007Author Commented:
Will have to get back to you next week.  Work's done for the weekend.  ;)

-Javin
0
 
Javin007Author Commented:
Well, things seem to be straightened out, now.  I don't know how, but the users DID seem to be using up all the ports.  Having added the additional IPs appears to have fixed the problem.  Thanks for the help!

-Javin
0

Featured Post

Free Tool: Site Down Detector

Helpful to verify reports of your own downtime, or to double check a downed website you are trying to access.

One of a set of tools we are providing to everyone as a way of saying thank you for being a part of the community.

  • 5
  • 3
  • 2
  • +1
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now