NAT on Cisc 891

I have a Cisco 891w currently connected to the internet with no problems. I have it handing out IP addresses on My issue here is I am now connecting this network physically to another network in the same building that is using a public IP space. Computers are given a 159.x.x.x scope. I want to NAT that 159.x.x.x network and put those devices on the network since I do not have access to that router which controls that subnet and the access behind it. These computers will still need to access devices that are on the 159.x.x.x router. What is the proper way to NAT this scenario? I would assume I would create either a vlan or setup a switchport on Router B as 159.x.x.2 and do an ip nat inside/outside??

NOTE: I do NOT have access to Router A.

Server 1   <------>  Router A   <--------------------->  Router B
     |___156.x.x.1        |___159.x.x.1                            |____192.168.13.1
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

AkinsdNetwork AdministratorCommented:
I'm not sure why you need NAT for this setup.

The devices on Router A should already have internet access also since they are public address. Public Addresses do not need NAT. NAT is used to translate a private IP to public IP when traversing the internet since private IPs are not routable on the internet. The advantage of this is to share 1 or more public IP addresses with multiple computers in cases where there are more devices than there are public IPs

If your concern is connectivity, all you need is to setup routes on both routers. Without access to router A, there's really nothing you can do.

Since the network is connected physically, meaning you will have additional point to point link between the routers
Router A
ip address
ip route

Router B
ip route 159.x.x.0

You will need the actual subnet mask on router A. I took a guess on the subnet mask for that network
lconnellAuthor Commented:
Hi, Yes I am aware of just routing the traffic.  I do not have access to Router A. A way around this is to NAT the traffic. If I put all computers on 192.168.13.x network on Router B then I should be able to setup 159.x.x.2 on Router B and route all 156.x.x.x traffic through 159.x.x.1. I would NAT between 192.168.13.x and 159.x.x.x so that all traffic looks like it's coming from a 159.x.x.x address which would then go through Router A and I would not need access.

Does that make sense?
AkinsdNetwork AdministratorCommented:
Yes, it makes sense but it won't work.

The 192.168.13.x computers will be able to get to the 159.x.x.x computers and will get replies using PAT. However, the 159.x.x.x  computers would not be able to initiate traffic to the 192.168.13.x computers. This is assuming that the ISP will acknowlege the IP you configured on Router B.

The routes from the ISP will be directed to the node that Router A connects to and not your nodes, unless if you are connected to the same node

There's a lot more than I've identified here as I don't know what your actual topology is.
Ultimate Tool Kit for Technology Solution Provider

Broken down into practical pointers and step-by-step instructions, the IT Service Excellence Tool Kit delivers expert advice for technology solution providers. Get your free copy now.

lconnellAuthor Commented:
That may be ok. Traffic won't be initiated from 159.x to 192.x network. That would be using PAT, what about NAT? Can I just create a NAT pool?
AkinsdNetwork AdministratorCommented:
I thought you only have 1 IP for the 192x in which case NAT Pool will be unnecessary as there's only 1 IP

Do you have a topology sketch you can post?
I will need that to determine your concept accurately.
lconnellAuthor Commented:
I figured it out by just overloading a L3 interface and using a route-map to NAT the traffic.

I control the 192 subnet, so I have as much as I need.  I don't have control of the 159 network. I don't need the 159 network to initiate traffic to 192.

The only other way to have 159 to talk directly to the 192 side would be a static 1-1 NAT correct?
AkinsdNetwork AdministratorCommented:
Yes, you will need a NAT address each  for every 192.x address in order for 159.x to be able to initiate traffic

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.

Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.