You didn't include the actual nat commands from the cisco.  They should
start with something like "ip nat inside...." or "ip nat outside..."

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of A. Clausen
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 2:51 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Converting from Cisco NAT to IPTables
>
>
> Out of the desire not to spend a fortune on another Cisco box, and to
> fulfill the need to do IP accounting, traffic shaping and (possibly)
> caching, we are putting together a Linux box.  So far I have successfully
> configured iptables to do some pretty basic IP accounting (which is all we
> really need).  One area that is stumping me is translating IOS
> NAT commands
> into iptables.
>
> We have what appears to be a rather odd configuration.  Our Cisco
> router is
> running as the border router between our upstream provider and our own /23
> block of addresses.  It is also configured to do NAT, though all NAT
> addresses are routed to three proprietary routers with a public IP address
> and then a private IP address.  Here is our current NAT
> configuration on the
> Cisco router.
>
> interface Ethernet0
>  description This the outside ethernet connected to our upstream provider
>  ip address yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy 255.255.255.252
>  ip access-group 101 out
>  no ip directed-broadcast
>  ip nat outside
> !
> interface Ethernet1
>  ip address xxx.xxx.xxx.2 255.255.254.0
>  no ip directed-broadcast
>  ip nat inside
> !
> ip route 10.101.104.0 255.255.248.0 xxx.xxx.xxx.170
> ip route 10.102.104.0 255.255.248.0 xxx.xxx.xxx.174
> ip route 10.103.104.0 255.255.248.0 xxx.xxx.xxx.175
> access-list 1 permit 10.101.104.0 0.0.7.255
> access-list 1 permit 10.102.104.0 0.0.7.255
> access-list 1 permit 10.103.104.0 0.0.7.255
>
> yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy is the upstream provider's IP for our router.
> xxx.xxx.xxx addresses are our own public block of IP addresses.
>
> I hope there is a way to do this using iptables, since everything else in
> Linux has gone off like a charm.
>
> --
> A. Clausen
>
>
>


Reply via email to