Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 12 replies
  • Subscribers 2 subscribers
  • Views 9775 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

ip masquerading

onats
Our ISP provided us 5 public IP addresses. We assigned 1 IP in the WAN interfaces and 4 IP as additional IP of the WAN link.

We are planning to allocate all of the public IP addresses such as:

192.168.100.1 - 192.168.100.5 | 1st public IP (assigned to WAN Interface Primary address) x.x.x.146


192.168.100.6 - 192.168.100.10 | 2nd public IP x.x.x.147


192.168.100.11 - 192.168.100.15 | 2nd public IP x.x.x.148


192.168.100.16 - 192.168.100.20 | 2nd public IP x.x.x.149


192.168.100.21 - 192.168.100.25 | 2nd public IP x.x.x.150



We've done it using Network Protection > NAT > IP Masquerading. However, the policy seems to be inconsistent. Initially it was working with the environment with 1 computer each group. However, when we put the configuration in production IP Masquerading policy was no longer effecting.

Please help.


This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0
    Hi, then something is probably wrong with your SNAT... please post a screenshot.

    Also, make sure you have a PacketFilter rule for the outbound traffic.

    Another possibility is that something may be wrong on the external interface; can you ping the additional external addresses from the internet? (you may need to enable Ping in the Firewall ICMP settings).

    Barry
Reply
  • 0
    Hi, then something is probably wrong with your SNAT... please post a screenshot.

    Also, make sure you have a PacketFilter rule for the outbound traffic.

    Another possibility is that something may be wrong on the external interface; can you ping the additional external addresses from the internet? (you may need to enable Ping in the Firewall ICMP settings).

    Barry
Children
No Data