pix 515 version 6.3 vs. 8.0 PAT

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by RG, May 27, 2010.

  1. RG

    RG Guest

    Is there a difference in the way you would configure PAT between versions
    6.3 and 8?

    I have tried to use working configuration from 6.3, below, on 8.0 and it
    didn't work.

    access-list inbound extended permit tcp any interface natfg eq https
    static (inside,tpfg) tcp 96.57.168.251 https 192.168.1.16 https netmask
    255.255.255.255
    access-group inbound in interface tpfg

    Thanks in advance
    RG, May 27, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RG

    RG Guest

    Correction..

    access-list inbound permit tcp any interface tpfg eq https
    static (inside,tpfg) tcp xx.xxx.xx.251 https 192.168.1.16 https netmask
    255.255.255.255
    access-group inbound in interface tpfg


    "RG" <> wrote in message
    news:4bfeb055$0$7594$...
    > Is there a difference in the way you would configure PAT between versions
    > 6.3 and 8?
    >
    > I have tried to use working configuration from 6.3, below, on 8.0 and it
    > didn't work.
    >
    > access-list inbound extended permit tcp any interface natfg eq https
    > static (inside,tpfg) tcp 96.57.168.251 https 192.168.1.16 https netmask
    > 255.255.255.255
    > access-group inbound in interface tpfg
    >
    > Thanks in advance
    >
    >
    RG, May 27, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RG

    Brian V Guest

    "RG" <> wrote in message
    news:4bfeb206$0$4985$...
    > Correction..
    >
    > access-list inbound permit tcp any interface tpfg eq https
    > static (inside,tpfg) tcp xx.xxx.xx.251 https 192.168.1.16 https netmask
    > 255.255.255.255
    > access-group inbound in interface tpfg
    >
    >
    > "RG" <> wrote in message
    > news:4bfeb055$0$7594$...
    >> Is there a difference in the way you would configure PAT between versions
    >> 6.3 and 8?
    >>
    >> I have tried to use working configuration from 6.3, below, on 8.0 and it
    >> didn't work.
    >>
    >> access-list inbound extended permit tcp any interface natfg eq https
    >> static (inside,tpfg) tcp 96.57.168.251 https 192.168.1.16 https netmask
    >> 255.255.255.255
    >> access-group inbound in interface tpfg
    >>
    >> Thanks in advance
    >>


    Nope, it's the same for that example.
    Brian V, May 28, 2010
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Strow

    PIX 515 NAT/PAT problem

    John Strow, Jan 17, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    5,640
    John Strow
    Jan 17, 2004
  2. Chris King

    Pix 515 4.4(7) and PAT

    Chris King, Feb 8, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    683
    Walter Roberson
    Feb 9, 2004
  3. BinSur
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    5,760
    BinSur
    Jan 13, 2006
  4. Scott Townsend
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    662
    Roman Nakhmanson
    Feb 22, 2006
  5. Natan
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    4,042
    Natan
    Apr 28, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page