<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Destination NAT for Route base VPN in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/destination-nat-for-route-base-vpn/m-p/385948#M90185</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;will the remote end participate in fixing the overlap? you could SNAT&amp;nbsp; to a fictitious subnet on the tunnel and have the remote do DNAT for the incoming packets&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;your end would be connecting TO fictitious IPs and be source NATed inside that same fictitious subnet (you can attch it to the tunnel interface for ease of use)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;the remote would be receiving connections to/from a fictitious subnet they'd need to destination nat to the appropriate servers&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;else you'll want to look into policy based forwarding as regular routing is applied after NAT and DNAT will be an issue in this case&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2021 13:08:24 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>reaper</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2021-02-15T13:08:24Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Destination NAT for Route base VPN</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/destination-nat-for-route-base-vpn/m-p/385689#M90168</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;We have an requirement to set up a route base VPN, but remote proxy IP subnet clash with an existing remote subnet.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We are planning to use destination NAT, but not sure, how the routing will be controlled.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Please help to solve this problem.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:35:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/destination-nat-for-route-base-vpn/m-p/385689#M90168</guid>
      <dc:creator>Gurupada</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-12T14:35:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Destination NAT for Route base VPN</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/destination-nat-for-route-base-vpn/m-p/385948#M90185</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;will the remote end participate in fixing the overlap? you could SNAT&amp;nbsp; to a fictitious subnet on the tunnel and have the remote do DNAT for the incoming packets&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;your end would be connecting TO fictitious IPs and be source NATed inside that same fictitious subnet (you can attch it to the tunnel interface for ease of use)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;the remote would be receiving connections to/from a fictitious subnet they'd need to destination nat to the appropriate servers&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;else you'll want to look into policy based forwarding as regular routing is applied after NAT and DNAT will be an issue in this case&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2021 13:08:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/destination-nat-for-route-base-vpn/m-p/385948#M90185</guid>
      <dc:creator>reaper</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-15T13:08:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

