[AusNOG] Exemption to a NAT rule for a particular destination

[Geordie Guy]

Thanks for replies guys.  Got it sorted with a higher NAT rule that rewrote
the traffic to that source with the original source and destination,
thereby exiting and missing the catchall NAT rule to NAT everything to the
net.


On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Alex Samad - Yieldbroker <
Alex.Samad at yieldbroker.com> wrote:

>  Hi
>
>
>
> Have a look at identity NAT and look for the example on not NAT’ing vpn
> traffic.
>
>
>
> This is a good start
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/security/asa/asa83/configuration/guide/config/nat_objects.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
> https://supportforums.cisco.com/document/44566/asa-83-nat-exemption-example-basic-l2l-vpn-and-basic-ra-vpn
>
>
>
> make sure you identity nat is before the global one
>
>
>
> A
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] *On Behalf Of *Craig
> Askings
> *Sent:* Thursday, 1 May 2014 2:49 PM
> *To:* <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Exemption to a NAT rule for a particular
> destination
>
>
>
> Sorry you have lost me here. Is the ASA doing all the NAT + the ipsec
> tunnel or is the upstream cisco router doing NAT and the ASA doing the
> ipsec tunnel?
>
>
>
> On 1 May 2014, at 2:45 pm, Geordie Guy <elomis at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>  Sorry guys, it's an ASA 5500 firewall making the decision to NAT, and
> cutting the upstream Cisco router out of making the decision to forward it
> into the tunnel.  More reading seems to reveal what I want to do is
> configure a higher priority NAT rule that NATs traffic to that destination
> by rewriting the source and destination traffic with the same original
> info, thereby cutting out the PAT for the public IP.  Does this make sense?
> (it seems to, in a weird way)
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Karl Auer <kauer at biplane.com.au> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2014-05-01 at 14:15 +1000, Geordie Guy wrote:
> > Is there a way of exempting a particular IP
> > address or providing some other criteria for a NAT rule?
>
> Almost certainly, but how to do it depends on what system you are using.
> Tell us what you are trying to do it *with* and someone who uses that
> system will probably be able to help.
>
> For MikroTik, for example, you add an "accept" rule to the srcnat chain
> in "/ip firewall nat", limiting it to specific source or destination
> addresses. Make sure such rules are placed before any masquerade actions
> involving the same sources or destinations, of course.
>
> > PS: (*%&*$ing NAT.
>
> What you said.
>
> Regards, K.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)
> http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
> http://twitter.com/kauer389
>
> GPG fingerprint: EC67 61E2 C2F6 EB55 884B E129 072B 0AF0 72AA 9882
> Old fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20140501/a092e375/attachment.html>