From: Brian McGahan (brian@cyscoexpert.com)
Date: Sat Jul 05 2003 - 23:26:02 GMT-3
Tom,
        BTW, it's Brian with an 'i'.  Just like that "other" Brian ;)
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
Director of Design and Implementation
brian@cyscoexpert.com
CyscoExpert Corporation
Internetwork Consulting & Training
Toll Free: 866.CyscoXP
Fax: 847.674.2625
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> Brian McGahan
> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 9:22 PM
> To: 'Thomas Larus'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: BGP TCP port 179 session drops when NAT (PAT) running
> 
> Tom,
> 
> 	Yes, the behavior you describe is correct.  Take the following
> setup:
> 
> R1--12.0.0.0/8--R2
> 
> 	R1 is in AS 1, R2 is in AS 2.  R1 is running NAT overload (PAT)
> on the serial interface connected to R2.  R1's config is as follows:
> 
> 
> interface Serial0/1
>  ip address 12.0.0.1 255.0.0.0
>  ip nat outside
>  clockrate 64000
> !
> router bgp 1
>  neighbor 12.0.0.2 remote-as 2
> !
> ip nat inside source list 1 int s0/1 overload
> !
> access-list 1 permit any
> 
> 	When you look at R1's translation table, you can see that the
> BGP session is getting translated:
> 
> R1# sh ip nat trans
> Pro Inside global      Inside local       Outside local      Outside
> global
> tcp 12.0.0.1:1         12.0.0.1:179       12.0.0.2:11009
> 12.0.0.2:11009
> 
> 
> 	When R2 receives this BGP request, it cannot process it because
> the ports have been translated.  In order to avoid this issue, we must
> configure R1 not to NAT BGP traffic.  The config would be as follows:
> 
> 
> ip nat inside source route-map NAT interface Serial0/1 overload
> !
> route-map NAT deny 10
>  match ip address 100
> !
> route-map NAT permit 20
> !
> access-list 100 permit tcp any any eq bgp
> 
> 
> 	This instructs R1's NAT process to NAT only traffic that does
> not match access-list 100, which specifies BGP traffic.
> 
> R1#sh ip bgp | b Neighbor
> Neighbor        V    AS MsgRcvd MsgSent   TblVer  InQ OutQ Up/Down
> State/PfxRcd
> 12.0.0.2        4     2      11      12        3    0    0 00:06:46
> 1
> 
> 	As you can see from this output, the BGP session is now
> established.
> 
> HTH,
> 
> Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
> Director of Design and Implementation
> brian@cyscoexpert.com
> 
> CyscoExpert Corporation
> Internetwork Consulting & Training
> Toll Free: 866.CyscoXP
> Fax: 847.674.2625
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > Thomas Larus
> > Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 7:57 PM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: BGP TCP port 179 session drops when NAT (PAT) running
> >
> > Has anyone else experienced this:
> >
> > You configure BGP peering from a serial interface that is also the
IP
> NAT
> > outside interface for Port Address Translation.  Actually, the BGP
> peering
> > came first, and then you added PAT.  PAT kills the BGP session by
> changing
> > the
> > source port number.
> >
> > Unless you exclude the IP NAT outside interface's own IP address
from
> the
> > IP
> > NAT inside source pool, PAT will change the source port for the TCP
> > session,
> > and the other BGP peer will not like the new port number and will
> > terminate
> > the BGP session.  At least that is what seemed to be going on when I
> > experienced this a while back.
> >
> > I just wanted to see if other folks had experienced this.  I mean,
> > ideally,
> > one would think that PAT would not act on TCP traffic originating
from
> the
> > IP
> > NAT outside interface itself.  I guess there is so much shuffling
> around
> > of
> > ports involved in PAT that the even traffic sourced from the outside
> > interface
> > can end up with changed source ports.  Either that, or the traffic
> > ostensibly
> > sourced from the outside interface is logically treated by PAT as
> sourced
> > from
> > elsewhere on the router.  I would understand if this happened when I
> had a
> > loopback address configured as an IP NAT inside interface, but the
> problem
> > persisted when I took NAT off the loopback.
> >
> > I just wanted to see if any of the brilliant engineers out there
would
> > explain
> > this phenomenon.  (Priscilla O., Howard B., Brian D., Bryan M., Fred
> I.?)
> >
> > Tom Larus, CCIE #10,014
> >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 06 2003 - 06:52:26 GMT-3