Route-map vs. access-list.

Jul 25, 2005 2 Replies
A

Hi all,



till now I always used route-map on NAT rule to avoid translations of traffic directed to the other LAN through a VPN tunnel. But route-map section has only a match rule to an ACL.



I've been applying that method as an external consultant told us but now I would ask you if the same result will be obtained using simply an ACL instead of a route-map.



So below follows the real configuration


ip nat inside source route-map vpn_2hq interface Dialer0 overload .... route-map vpn_2hq permit 10 match ip address 131 .... access-list 131 deny ip 10.134.3.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.31.0 0.0.0.255 access-list 131 permit ip 10.134.3.0 0.0.0.255 any


but should the next one be correct as well?



ip nat inside source list 131 vpn_2hq interface Dialer0 overload .... access-list 131 deny ip 10.134.3.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.31.0 0.0.0.255 access-list 131 permit ip 10.134.3.0 0.0.0.255 any


Alex.



Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
M

As long as there is no action taken on the match, then an ACL should work fine.

I would use: ip nat inside source list 131 interface Dialer0 overload

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
P

maybe he cant use ip nat inside source list 131 interface Dialer0 overload

because above match ip address 131 on his route-map has a line similar to this route-map vpn_2hq permit 10 match ip address 131 match interface Dialer1

in order to NAT only traffic from dialer 1 and then default route everything to some other dialer or atm interface without NAT ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Dialer2

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required