This topic is to discuss the following lesson:
Nice Article . Please carry on .
ASA1(config)# nat (OUTSIDE,OUTSIDE) source dynamic VPN_POOL interface
I got few doubt about the above statements
 Why is the key word SOURCE used in the NAT statement
 waht effect it would make if the Dynamic is changed to Static in NAT statment
STATIC is a one to 1 mapping ie public 184.108.40.206 maps to private 10.10.10.1 all the time.
DYNAMIC would be used if you had multiple connections that needed to be NATTed as you can then define a range of IP addresses using an access list and when a NAT translation needed to be made, then it would use a free public IP address from the access list.
I was thinking through how to lab up this lesson and was having trouble on the layout for the cloud that labeled outside and the vpn user. I was thinking the cloud was a router with regular ospf passing all traffic and the vpn user… Could you point me in the right direction (configs) on how to lab up this lesson
Yes, actually, you’re on the right track. You can create a router with three interfaces, each on a different subnet. Say something like this:
In this case, all of the 10.10.X.X address space can be considered “the Internet.”
You can use OSPF if you like to convey routing information to all routers involved, or you could use static routing if you like as well. Just keep in mind that both the ASA and R2 must be informed of each other’s networks (R2 should know about the 10.10.2.0/24 network and the ASA should know about the 10.10.3.0/24 and the 220.127.116.11/32 networks).
This way you can confirm that your VPN is working over “the Internet,” that incoming traffic to the ASA is entering via the VPN and outgoing traffic from the ASA will be connecting again via “the Internet” to the web server at 18.104.22.168.
I hope this has been helpful!
My question is that why would you even want to translate internal traffic or hairpinning for that matter, can you give any other examples.
thanks so much…
By doing this, we enforce that all remote user Internet traffic goes through our HQ ASA. Two reasons I can think of:
- We can filter Internet traffic from remote users on our ASA.
- Remote users might have a dynamic IP address. Imagine R2 is some remote development server which has an IP whitelist. Only the IP address of the ASA is on the whitelist. By using hairpinning, a remote developer can access the development server through the VPN.
Hope this helps!
Can you confirm a few details on this article please:
- The name split-horizon is used, should this be split-tunnelling?
- In each configuration example, Gi0/1 has been used for the interface detail, whereas the diagram uses Gi0/0. Is there some details I’m overlooking?
Thanks again for your help.
Yes, you are correct, that should be split-tunnelling.
I see that on the ASA, Gi0/0 is the outside interface, while Gi0/1 is the inside interface. I don’t see G0/0 indicated anywhere in any configurations of the ASA, however, in all the configuration output it refers to this interface as OUTSIDE.
Having said that, I seen no configuration details of the actual Gi0/0 interface in the configuration files of the ASA.
I’ll let @ReneMolenaar know to make those improvements. Thanks for pointing this out!!
I hope this has been helpful, stay healthy and stay safe!
You are right, thanks for letting us know. I fixed “split horizon”, this should be split tunneling. I also fixed the interface number.