- A virtual community of network engineers
 Home  BookStore  StudyNotes  Links  Archives  StudyRooms  HelpWanted  Discounts  Login
RE: pix nat question [7:98134] posted 04/01/2005
[Chronological Index] [Thread Index] [Top] [Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]

The syntax is correct and is bi-directional; some confusion as to why
you would nat private to private addressing but valid nonetheless.



-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 31 March 2005 21:34
To: cisco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: pix nat question [7:98134]

Let's say I have a server on the inside network that needs to access a
server on the outside network, separated by a PIX firewall. When the
outside server initiates to the inside server, it uses an address of, which gets translated to the real ip address of the inside
server at so I believe my static would look like this:

static (inside,outside) netmask

What if the inside server needed to initiate to that outside server?
would the same static statement work in that direction or would I need
another static in reverse order?
This e-mail and its attachments, is confidential and is intended for the
addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure,
distribution or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be
unlawful. Please note that any information expressed in this message or its
attachments is not given or endorsed by An Post unless otherwise indicated
by an authorised representative independently of this message. An Post does
not accept responsibility for the contents of this message and although it
has been scanned for viruses An Post will not accept responsibility for any
damage caused as a result of a virus being passed on.

Message Posted at:
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: