Recent content by ntwrkrbkj

Tried that already. :-)

Yeah, their old forwards work fine on their old firewall, but.....their old firewall has a diff public than the new one and it is within their assigned range. So server isn't the issue, it's definitely network related and since I was there and at 1 point had nothing but my laptop and their...

Thanks for the reply. Just following the command structure that Cisco shows for doing port forwarding....and I've put the device in my lab this morning (didn't have time yesterday) and put the same config on it (with diff IP's of course) and the thing works perfectly. I can RDP from the...

Is the ASA 5505 capable of doing 1 to 1 NAT? Every configuration I've tried hasn't worked, but then again, I'm used to the PIX series. Does anyone have any good links to config examples that encorporate 1 to 1 NAT? These are the commands I'm using (yes, the x's are public IPs): access-list...

Ok, I've inherited a VCX Connect 100 system which is using the internal gateway interface with 2 - 4x Port FXO cards and 1 - 4x Port FXS card. We are using analog circuits from the PSTN (obviously). The system seems to work fine except for when a caller hangs up before the call is answered...

cknipe has it right, ATA devices on the NBX platform cannot perform faster than 14.4kbps, it's a known issue, who knows if there will ever be a fix.

I hear you man, yeah, that's why I was trying to NAT them. There's no way I would have turned them loose from behind the NAT. I think you're right, Burt, it's the easiest solution. I had just hoped someone more learned than myself had successfully done this with NAT before. :-)

Oh, and no firewall yet, this is the perimeter device.

Yeah, it makes sense, and I knew that connecting to 192.0.1.5 directly was out of the question. No, I can't connect to the xxx.xxx.29.35 webserver. However, I can ping it. And I know the webserver works internally. My problem is I don't know the rules for NAT'ing a public IP behind another...

No, they don't have them, they thought that because it was 192.x.x.x that is was private :-). I said, no, that starts at 192.168.x.x. *shrugs* Like I say, worst case they can redo their subnet, it's only 20 machines and a server, but morbid curiousity made me want to know if I could do this...

Ah yes, gotcha, Burt. That's the subnet they have in place, and I did mention to them that subnet was not in a private range. I am sure the user can change the subnet if needed, but I was hoping there might be some way to config around it?

Ok, new NAT config: ip nat inside source list 1 interface FastEthernet1 overload ip nat inside source static udp 192.0.1.5 631 xxx.xxx.29.35 631 ip nat inside source static tcp 192.0.1.5 631 xxx.xxx.29.35 631 ip nat inside source static tcp 192.0.1.5 22 xxx.xxx.29.35 22 ip nat inside source...

Just doing NAT translation to allow inside users to access the internet. The static statements are statements that I have used in the past and the examples that I have found to do forwarding through the router. I'm basically trying to pass public traffic from xxx.xxx.29.34 to the internal...

Post your config, sogol.

Ok, apparently I'm not understanding IOS 12.4, I hope someone can help me out here. Am I missing an ACL or something that is keeping the forwards from working? Thanks! version 12.4 service config no service pad service tcp-keepalives-in service tcp-keepalives-out service timestamps debug...