I am curious. Is anyone out there using http_mapped, or ftp_mapped, or smtp_mapped and if so what is the use case?
These mapped services are rarely used in the real world, and allow the mapping of matched connections to the destination IP address and destination port of your choosing as configured in the Advanced Properties of the service itself. A use case for this would be setting up port forwarding for multiple inbound services coming into a single Internet-routable address, but you can also do the same thing with manual NAT rules.
Note that all traffic matching these mapped services is ineligible for any acceleration by SecureXL and will always go F2F.
-- Second Edition of my "Max Power" Firewall Book Now Available at http://www.maxpowerfirewalls.com
Thanks Tim. Makes sense to F2F due the the nature of it.
I've always used manual NAT when in those situations, for example when the customer is located in a rented office space and allocated only one IP address on the public network. Recycling the FW IP for other services on the inside :-)
I used this a lot with transparent proxy configuration. Now it starts to have second life because you can combine it with users/Access role as a source or application as a service.
It is only way I know, how to allow traffic for specific application (for example office365) directly, without adding thousands IPs to manual NAT rules.
Of course SecureXL limitation is main concern to use it widely.
Retrieving data ...