Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of hancke
hanckeFlag for United States of America

asked on

SonicWall Policy NAT

I want to config a Sonicwall 2400 to NAT the LAN IP 172.16.0.0/24 to 10.76.0.100 IF the DESTINATION is 10.75.0.0/24.   The 10.76.0.0/24 Network is on another internal router but I need to NAT it due to 172.16.0.0/24 IP overlap on a L2L VPN.  

Is it possible to NAT on a LAN interface and then add a static route(NAT IP 10.76.0.100) to another inside router(10.76.0.1) using the SonicWall 2400?
Avatar of rfc1180
rfc1180
Flag of United States of America image

Yes.  The instructions show how to NAT before sending over a VPN which is essentially what's happening.  The sonicwall sees where the source IP is going and that it must NAT that to a "local hide" IP, then sends it to the destination.  If you don't need it to go over a VPN, then you can ignore the VPN steps in the instructions provided by rfc1180.
Avatar of hancke

ASKER

Do you know if Sonicwall will NAT LAN traffic without it going out the WAN?  Basically will it NAT on the same interface without going across 2 interfaces?

I'll try the NAT portion of the VPN setup.
Possibly.  You'd just need to make sure you get the NAT correct.  If you have enhanced OS, you can get fairly granular with the NAT rules.

I've always used this when i needed to mask a local network when the destination network was using the same IP network.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Avatar of digitap
digitap
Flag of United States of America image

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Avatar of hancke

ASKER

I have the NAT policies built and the routing setup.  I'll have to try it Monday when I can get to a PC to test it.
I've done NAT policy and policy routing but it has always been to the WAN or VPN.  Never just on the LAN.
Thanks for the help!
yes...the most complicated i've managed is a point to point VPN where the primary IP networks were the same, but each side had other networks that weren't NAT'd.  it's fun.
thanks for the points!