I'm about to open a case with Cisco regarding this issue, but I'm curious
if anyone out there has run into something similar:
Background:
A company is migrating networks. For various reasons, the following
network is in place.
Cisco 1720: has a fast ethernet connecting to the PIX, an ethernet
What if you move the default route to toward the PIX? I bet it works then.
How is the router to know where to forward the packets just because there is
a NAT in place? The NAT happens as the packets go from one interace to the
other, but that is still depending on routing taking place for it to
Thanks for the reply Jason.
Actually, the routing was completely correct. I spent 5 hours on the phone
with TAC yesterday and they confirmed that it was a bug with the double
NAT. For some reason, IOS NAT, when presented with already NATed traffic,
won't properly send the traffic to a defaul
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Craig Columbus
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 8:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Double-Nat troubles [7:5752]
Thanks for the reply Jason.
Actually, the routing was completely correct. I spent 5 hours on the phone
with TAC yesterday and they
>Craig Columbus
>Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 5:03 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject:Re: Double-Nat troubles [7:5752]
>
>Thanks for the reply Jason.
>
>Actually, the routing was completely correct. I spent 5 hours on the phone
>with TAC yesterday and they confirm
nal Message-----
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> >Craig Columbus
> >Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 5:03 AM
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject:Re: Double-Nat troubles [7:5752]
> >
> >Thanks for the reply Jas
;ip next-hop" manually if the packet
matches
> > the rules.
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > At 07:44 AM 5/25/2001 -0700, you wrote:
> > >I agree with the other guy. How would any router "know" that a packet
had
> > >already been natted?
> >
7 matches
Mail list logo
