topic Re: Spark Device NAT for two wan link in Spark Firewall (SMB)

Spark Device NAT for two wan link

Han_Lung_Kuo — Wed, 16 Feb 2022 08:20:30 GMT

Hi All,

I have a checkpoint 1530 Cluster (HA Mode, Local Management, R80.20.30)

and have two wan link (ISP Redundancy: HA Mode).

I create "Server" objects and set public ip for WAN1 IP, NAT function is work

but when I create another "Server" object for same server:port to NAT WAN2 IP, system show error:

"Another server has the same IP address and overlapping ports"

I try add manual NAT for WAN2

, icmp and udp look like work, but tcp not.

firewall policy log show traffic accept.

Does have method to setting NAT for two wan link?

Re: Spark Device NAT for two wan link

G_W_Albrecht — Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:55:51 GMT

How many servers do you have ? One server that can be reached over 2 ISPs is defined with an internal IP and gets two NAT rules, one for every ISP.

Re: Spark Device NAT for two wan link

Han_Lung_Kuo — Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:19:05 GMT

I have two servers:

WAN 1 IP-1 & WAN 2 IP-1 NAT to Server 1 internal IP
WAN 1 IP-2 & WAN 2 IP-2:8888 NAT to Server 2 internal IP:80
:8889 :81

now I do WAN 1 NAT using "Server" objects, how can I do to config WAN 2 NAT?

Re: Spark Device NAT for two wan link

G_W_Albrecht — Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:43:47 GMT

Better contact CP TAC in chat - they can resolve this asap.

Re: Spark Device NAT for two wan link

the_rock — Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:25:13 GMT

@G_W_Albrecht gave you good suggestion, contact TAC and have them resolve this for you. Im pretty sure based on the NAT rules you have they are correct, so not sure why its saying that another server has same IP, maybe confirm if thats the case. Can you take screenshot and upload of objects server1 and server2?

Re: Spark Device NAT for two wan link

G_W_Albrecht — Thu, 17 Feb 2022 09:41:31 GMT

@_Val_ , can you put this into SMB corner ?

Re: Spark Device NAT for two wan link

PhoneBoy — Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:40:43 GMT

I got ya

Re: Spark Device NAT for two wan link

Han_Lung_Kuo — Fri, 24 Jun 2022 03:31:14 GMT

Update:

I contact TAC and finally know this is a known limitation: sk179550

Thanks everyone.