Problem with NAT

[Piotr Pisz <pi...@piszki.pl>]

Hello community :-)

I have two CS installations, one in version 4.10 and one 4.11. In both cases, the infrastructure is configured in the same way, we have an advanced network. In 4.11 everything works fine, while in 4.10, static NAT and port forwarding from public addresses do not work properly in the VPC network. The only difference I found was that in 4.11 in Virtual Router, the network looks like this:
eth0 - link local
eth1 - vr public / nat and port fw ip's (logically this is ok)
eth2 - vpc
In 4.10 instead:
eth0 - link local
eth1 - vr public ip
eth2 - vpc / public ip with nat or port fw enabled (logically this is not ok)
The question is, is VR in 4.10 configured correctly?
How this diagnose? The VPC network has a default_allow policy, in both cases we can get outside.
I can not find any error in the configuration, in the previously existing configuration 4.10 everything worked correctly (we test different possibilities).

Regards,
Piotr

Re: Problem with NAT

[Andrija Panic <an...@gmail.com>]

Hi Piotr,

not really helping...but 4.10 (afaik) was broken enough to not be
considered an official release - can you please upgrade to 4.11 ?

Cheers
Andrija

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 07:55, Piotr Pisz <pi...@piszki.pl> wrote:

> Hello community :-)
>
> I have two CS installations, one in version 4.10 and one 4.11. In both
> cases, the infrastructure is configured in the same way, we have an
> advanced network. In 4.11 everything works fine, while in 4.10, static NAT
> and port forwarding from public addresses do not work properly in the VPC
> network. The only difference I found was that in 4.11 in Virtual Router,
> the network looks like this:
> eth0 - link local
> eth1 - vr public / nat and port fw ip's (logically this is ok)
> eth2 - vpc
> In 4.10 instead:
> eth0 - link local
> eth1 - vr public ip
> eth2 - vpc / public ip with nat or port fw enabled (logically this is not
> ok)
> The question is, is VR in 4.10 configured correctly?
> How this diagnose? The VPC network has a default_allow policy, in both
> cases we can get outside.
> I can not find any error in the configuration, in the previously existing
> configuration 4.10 everything worked correctly (we test different
> possibilities).
>
> Regards,
> Piotr
>
>
>

-- 

Andrija Panić