The issue is solved after I have changed my public IP address in use
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Payam Chychi pchy...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the dst ip pingabl drom the fw? I thought the system auto monitors to
see if the dnat dst responds to icmp packets and if not, will not work
?
Hi All
I have srx210h
I Have a server with an IP address x.x.x.x and want to allow telnet access
to it on different port (I chose ) , and assigned it the public IP
address y.y.y.y
But seems not working
set security zones security-zone trust address-book address SERVER
y.y.y.y/32
set
Hi,
DNAT is done before the policy match/route lookup. You need to allow x.x.x.x in
the policy instead of y.y.y.y
Regards,
Asad
On Nov 28, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Mohammad Khalil eng.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All
I have srx210h
I Have a server with an IP address x.x.x.x and want to allow telnet
But I already configured set security zones security-zone trust
address-book address SERVER y.y.y.y/32
Which will contain the real IP address right ?
I followed the link below
http://www.fir3net.com/Juniper-SRX-Series-Gateway/juniper-srx-destination-nat-port-forwarding.html
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013
Again,
Your config says that x.x.x.x is the physical IP address of the server and
y.y.y.y is the NAT pool IP.
So, in the security policy, you will allow the physical IP address (x.x.x.x) in
the destination address INSTEAD of y.y.y.y.
it should be like following:
set security zones
Actually your NAT pool config need changes as well. Following is the correct
config with changes highlighted:
Assumption:
Real (private) IP of server: x.x.x.x:23
Public (NAT) IP of server : y.y.y.y:
set security zones security-zone trust address-book address SERVER
x.x.x.x/32
set
I am sorry to say that I think it is almost correct. The policy rules are
evaluated after destination NAT handling, where the destination port has
already been translated. You should probably exchange:
set security policies from-zone untrust to-zone trust policy DNAT_POLICY
match application
set security policies from-zone untrust to-zone trust policy
DNAT_POLICY match application junos-telnet
But am already using right ? and junos-telnet is supposed to work in
23 ?
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Mohammad Khalil eng.m...@gmail.comwrote:
Sorry but it did not work again
Sorry but it did not work again
set security zones security-zone trust address-book address ALTOS_SERVER
132.147.160.3/32
set applications application TELNET_DNAT protocol tcp
set applications application TELNET_DNAT destination-port
set security nat destination pool DNAT_POOL address
Below is what I believe is a working solution.
First, with destination nat, matching on public IP/port, the destination
IP/port is translated from 24.173.164.162 : to 132.147.160.3:23.
Next, the policy match statement has to allow just that, after the translation:
132.147.160.3:23.
Have you set up proxy-arp for the DNAT address? It does not work by itself, has
to be manually if it is an address on the external (untrust) network.
/Per
28 nov 2013 kl. 10:32 skrev Mohammad Khalil eng.m...@gmail.com:
set security policies from-zone untrust to-zone trust policy
No, those source nat rules should have no effect on you problem. When the
inbound traffic matches (hopefully) the requirements, a complete flow is set
up. The return traffic automatically gets the proper nat handling to match the
inbound traffic. The outbound traffic will use source NAT that
Yes , it's in place with no luck
set security nat source rule-set trust-to-untrust from zone trust
set security nat source rule-set trust-to-untrust to zone untrust
set security nat source rule-set trust-to-untrust rule nonat match
source-address 132.147.160.0/24
set security nat source rule-set
No the session is not up , and I have changed the port to be 23 on both
sides (junos-telnet) and still not working ?
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Per Westerlund p...@westerlund.se wrote:
No, those source nat rules should have no effect on you problem. When the
inbound traffic matches
set security nat proxy-arp interface ge-0/0/0.0 address 24.173.164.162/32 ?
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Per Westerlund p...@westerlund.se wrote:
Have you set up proxy-arp for the DNAT address? It does not work by
itself, has to be manually if it is an address on the external (untrust)
Try to add this to your configuration:
[edit security flow]
perw@srx1# show
traceoptions {
file dnat-telnet-debug;
flag basic-datapath;
packet-filter dnat-telnet-in {
protocol tcp;
destination-prefix 24.173.164.162/32;
destination-port ;
}
Ok i will give it a shot , but before that I have tried something different
, I just want to configure static NAT (one to one)
set security nat static rule-set static-nat from zone untrust
set security nat static rule-set static-nat rule ALTOS_STATIC match
destination-address 24.173.164.162/32
set
Ok I have changed the static IP address to 164 and the static NAT worked ,
I will try the destination port again
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Mohammad Khalil eng.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok i will give it a shot , but before that I have tried something
different , I just want to configure
Is the dst ip pingabl drom the fw? I thought the system auto monitors to see if
the dnat dst responds to icmp packets and if not, will not work
?
--
Payam Chychi
Network Engineer / Security Specialist
On Thursday, November 28, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Mohammad Khalil wrote:
Ok I have changed
Yup it is a bug, it works fine in 11.4R1.6.
--
Leigh
-Original Message-
From: Ben Dale [mailto:bd...@comlinx.com.au]
Sent: 20 March 2012 13:09
To: Leigh Porter
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Destination NAT on SRX cluster
Hi Leigh,
On 20/03/2012, at 10
Hello Folks,
I am configuring a cluster of SRX240s running 11.1R3.5 for destination NAT.
Simply, a device in the DMZ zone on a private IP address listening on port 22
needs to be reachable from the untrust zone on port 22.
destination {
pool wilderness {
address
Hi Leigh,
On 20/03/2012, at 10:53 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
error: The number of destination NAT pools exceeds limit of 0
[edit security nat destination rule-set incoming-connections rule
port-forward then destination-nat]
'pool'
failed to get pool (wilderness)
error: configuration
From: Ben Dale [mailto:bd...@comlinx.com.au]
Hi Leigh,
On 20/03/2012, at 10:53 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
error: The number of destination NAT pools exceeds limit of 0 [edit
security nat destination rule-set incoming-connections rule
port-forward then destination-nat] 'pool'
I'd agree it seems that you're running into a bug. Trying your config
on my SRX I am able to commit through. Reth's tend to be different
than a normal interface from a code standpoint, but nat isn't a
limitation (thank god).
If you're working in a lab, try to upgrade to my code version perhaps.
I hope the given below thread can help you.
http://forums.juniper.net/t5/SRX-Services-Gateway/GRE-Outbound-Nat/td-p/34274
Regards,
Muhammad Fahad Khan
JNCIE-M # 756, 2xJNCIP-(M SEC) # 834
IT Specialist
Global Technology Services, IBM
fa...@pk.ibm.com
+92-301-8247638
Skype: fahad-ibm
Does anyone know how to pass protocol 47 (GRE) through destination NAT in
JunOS? This is on an SRX100 running 10.4R4.5 currently.
There is no match condition in the policies to permit it to pass...
Thanks,
Paul
___
juniper-nsp
Alexander Shikoff minotaur at crete.org.ua writes:
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 04:01:40AM +0200, Alexander Shikoff wrote:
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 06:32:05PM -0700, Brandon Bennett wrote:
08/17/09 05:21:01 I am not sure of the exact time, but I know that It
should
be in version
10 of
If I try to set up more than 8 rules per rule-set on our
SRX240 boxes, Junos gets cranky. Here's the error I
receive:
---
cho...@ss0101# commit check
[edit security nat destination rule-set mail]
'rule'
number of elements exceeds limit of 8
error: configuration check-out failed: (number
Upgrade to 9.6. You can have many more rules per rule-set...
From: Christopher M. Hobbs ch...@altbit.org
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 10:08:13 AM
Subject: [j-nsp] destination nat, 8 rule limit
If I try to set up more than 8
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 06:32:05PM -0700, Brandon Bennett wrote:
08/17/09 05:21:01 I am not sure of the exact time, but I know that It should
be in version
10 of Junos.
Did they mention what it would be increased to?
IIRC 256 rules per one rule-set.
--
MINO-RIPE
08/17/09 05:21:01 I am not sure of the exact time, but I know that It should
be in version
10 of Junos.
Did they mention what it would be increased to?
-Brandon
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
...
From: Christopher M. Hobbs ch...@altbit.org
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 10:08:13 AM
Subject: [j-nsp] destination nat, 8 rule limit
If I try to set up more than 8 rules per rule-set on our
SRX240 boxes, Junos gets cranky. Here's
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 10:08:13 AM
Subject: [j-nsp] destination nat, 8 rule limit
If I try to set up more than 8 rules per rule-set on our
SRX240 boxes, Junos gets cranky. Here's the error I
receive:
---
cho...@ss0101# commit check
[edit
: [j-nsp] destination nat, 8 rule limit
If I try to set up more than 8 rules per rule-set on our
SRX240 boxes, Junos gets cranky. Here's the error I
receive:
---
cho...@ss0101# commit check
[edit security nat destination rule-set mail]
'rule'
number of elements exceeds limit of 8
JUNOS 9.6 will increase the limitation to 256 and even more in future
release.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Ben Dale bd...@comlinx.com.au wrote:
I have run into this issue in the past - one hack I have used to work
around it is to configure for example 8 rules of destination NAT and then
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 02:12:58PM +0800, ?? wrote:
JUNOS 9.6 will increase the limitation to 256 and even more in future
release.
A guy from J-Net Community forum told me that limit will be increased
in 9.5R2. Juniper plans to release it at the end of current month.
My interest is more
Hello!
I have J2320 with JunOS 9.5, one external interface with one IP-address.
I wish to make destination NAT for 12 different hosts in my internal network,
for example
external IP port 5000 - local IP1 port 5000
external IP port 5001 - local IP2 port 5001
[...]
But one
I have run into this issue in the past - one hack I have used to work
around it is to configure for example 8 rules of destination NAT and
then 8 rules of static NAT. The static NAT takes away your ability to
specify port, but you could use policies to limit the traffic allowed
through
38 matches
Mail list logo
