One-to-One NAT - DMZ to inside - how do I make it work?

[darren_g]

Folks.

I'm apparently having a particularly stupid day, because I can;t make something as simple as one-to-one NAT work.

Scenario is this.

I have an IP in my DMZ. I have assigned this IP to a particular server which is hosted on my INSIDE (secure) network.

All I want to do is take this IP address and NAT it to the inside address. Something like this

IP addresses have been changed to protect the stupid (me!).

So - request comes in from the web to 1.2.3.91, and I want to redirect it to 10.100.1.120 - only needs web browsing and PING.

but I can not, for the life of me, get it right.

I've got the following NAT rule

Original packet

Source Zone - Outside

Destination Zone - DMZ

Source Address - Any

Destination Address - 1.2.3.91

Translated Packet

Source Translation : None

Destination translation : 10.100.1.120

The security policy is as follows

Source : Outside

Source Address : Any

Destination : Inside

Destination Address : 10.100.1.120

I'm happy for anyone to point out where I'm being stupid and laugh at me - I know it's something obvious, but I'm banging my head trying to sort out what.

thanks

[Ameya-Kawimandan]

Can you add a packet-filter and monitor the Global counters for the packet-filter for the source IP (Monitor>Packet Filter)

Initiate a PING to the destination (Public DMZ)  ,and verify if the packets are making it to the firewall using the following command:

>show counter global filter packet-filter yes delta yes  (Run multiple times )

[darren_g]

HULK wrote:

Hello Darren,

Could you please provide a snapshot of traffic log for this destination ( internal server IP 10.100.1.120).

Example:



Thanks

No, I can't because there is *nothing* in the logs for the internal IP address. Or the external one, for that matter!

[darren_g]

akawimandan wrote:

Can you add a packet-filter and monitor the Global counters for the packet-filter for the source IP (Monitor>Packet Filter) 
Initiate a PING to the destination (Public DMZ)  ,and verify if the packets are making it to the firewall using the following command: 
>show counter global filter packet-filter yes delta yes  (Run multiple times )

Well, I'm definitely able to capture the incoming PING packets going to the destination IP, so I'm not going nuts and losing it somewhere. The PCAP shows it clearly.

Damned if I can figure out WHY this isn't working, though.

[HULK]

Hello Darren,

Thanks for the update. As per my understanding, packets are getting dropped before creating the flow into this firewall. So, please follow the instructions given by akawimandan and take an output of >show counter global filter packet-filter yes delta yes  (Run multiple times ).

Thanks

[darren_g]

Well, the packets are definitely being dropped by the firewall.

I've setup 3 PCAP's so far - stage "receive", stage "firewall" and stage "drop".

The "receive' and "drop" stages show packets. The "firewall" stage does not.

The output of the command above is shown below

Global counters:

Elapsed time since last sampling: 192.637 seconds

name                                   value     rate severity  category  aspect    description

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

pkt_sent                                   1        0 info      packet    pktproc   Packets transmitted

pkt_outstanding                            1        0 info      packet    pktproc   Outstanding packet to be transmitted

pkt_alloc                                  1        0 info      packet    resource  Packets allocated

flow_policy_deny                           7        0 drop      flow      session   Session setup: denied by policy

flow_host_pkt_xmt                          1        0 info      flow      mgmt      Packets transmitted to control plane

appid_ident_by_icmp                        7        0 info      appid     pktproc   Application identified by icmp type

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total counters shown: 6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Session setup denied by policy" - sounds ominous - which policy is denying it?