• Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 246
  • Last Modified:

Cisco ASA PIX Multiple NAT Statements

I have a host on which I have IIS running and it therefore needs to be publicly accessible on TCP80/443.

I now also need this host to be accessible over an IPSec VPN tunnel, also on TCP80/443.

The remote end requires me to source NAT my host and I therefore need the following.

1. Host A NATs to public IP x.x.x.x under normal circumstances.
2. Host A NATs to private IP y.y.y.y only when passing traffic over the IPSec tunnel.

How do I configure this ?

I originally had a static NAT statement mapping host A to y.y.y.y. If I try to add a second NAT statement using an ACL which specifies host A and the remote subnets I get an overlap error.

If I remove both statements and enter the NAT statement with the ACL first followed by the statement mapping host A to y.y.y.y I get the same error.

How can I configure it to NAT to different IP addresses based on different destinations ?

  • 2
  • 2
1 Solution
James HIT DirectorCommented:
OK. You definitely need to NAT from public to Host A, that's a given.
Why did you feel you needed to NAT the IPSec? As long as you enable Reverse routing, it will forward those packets out the same interface.  The ACL you configure as required but what happens to the remote network with the NAT statement removed? Is the tunnel configured to pass that traffic across? Can you show any logs?
ccfcfcAuthor Commented:
The remote side has imposed a subnet on us.

We need to NAT to addresses within this subnet that they have provided us for traffic going over the IPSec tunnel to meet with their addressing requirements, so I don't have the option of not doing this.

There isn't any logging to show yet as when I try to enter the second NAT statement I get the error message about an overlap.
Jan SpringerCommented:
You need to configure (nat exemption) an access-list and apply it to your NAT statement so that the IP addresses or subnets listed in the ACL are exempt from the NAT.

The configuration is different for 8.2 and earlier and 8.3 and later.
ccfcfcAuthor Commented:
NAT exemption is what I would normally be applying to traffic passing over an IPSec tunnel.

This isn't NAT exemption - the third party at the remote side is dictating the address that I need to NAT my side to. I cannot just NAT exempt it to use my private IP addresses - I have to NAT it to the addresses that I have been provided.
Jan SpringerCommented:
NAT rules are processed in order.  Can you place this rule above your current NAT rule?

nat (outside,outside) source static REMOTE_IP NEW_PUBLIC destination static NEW_PUBLIC CURRENT_PUBLIC

nat(outside,outside) source static CURRENT_PUBLIC NEW_PUBLIC destination static NEW_PUBLIC REMOTE_IP


nat(inside,outside) source status REMOTE_IP NEW_PUBLIC destination static NEW_PUBLIC INSIDE_IP

nat(outside,inside) source static INSIDE_IP NEW_PUBLIC destination static NEW_PUBLIC REMOTE_IP
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.

Join & Write a Comment

Featured Post

Free Tool: Port Scanner

Check which ports are open to the outside world. Helps make sure that your firewall rules are working as intended.

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.

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