Important note about SSL VPN compatibility for 20.0 MR1 with EoL SFOS versions and UTM9 OS. Learn more in the release notes.

This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Why it is not possible to add a linked NAT rule to a FW rule?

I am creating a new firewall rule and want to add a linked NAT rule to it, but the fields for adding source, destination and other parameters are greyed out:

That warning which is visible in the printscreen does not make sense to me - can someone translate it into human language?

I also tried to create a NAT rule first, but did not find any option to later add it to the firewalll rule



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • Essentially i would not recommend to use a Linked NAT Rule at all. The message here basically means: The blocked filters are related to the firewall rule and the only thing, you can change, is "what to do with the SNAT". 

    But if you want to have a granular approach, simply create a SNAT Rule as you need it. 

    BTW: SNAT in general is not needed in most deployments: You have the MASQ Rule, which hits as default rule. If you need to do a SNAT; you can configure it based on your needs. 

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reply
  • Essentially i would not recommend to use a Linked NAT Rule at all. The message here basically means: The blocked filters are related to the firewall rule and the only thing, you can change, is "what to do with the SNAT". 

    But if you want to have a granular approach, simply create a SNAT Rule as you need it. 

    BTW: SNAT in general is not needed in most deployments: You have the MASQ Rule, which hits as default rule. If you need to do a SNAT; you can configure it based on your needs. 

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Children
No Data