Hi,

I have a client who has moved their Microsoft Exchange servers to a service 
provider location (as part of a de-perimeterization strategy). These servers 
are reachable via the Internet. Thus, the client IP are NATted before they 
cross the corporate boundary.
There are about 45000 users.
Each user needs about 17-22 sessions (that's how MS Outlook works) and thus as 
many NAT entries
Therefore a NAT pool is used with overload.
It was working fine for more than a year now but suddenly the following 
phenomenon has been noticed.
- When a user session is being built up and he has let's say 10 NAT entries 
using the first IP in the NAT pool and the port numbers run out, the next IP in 
the NAT pool is used to complete the required number of sessions.
- Exchange server is apparently not happy with one client using 2 IP addresses 
and keeps (re-)building sessions untill all of them are using the same NATted 
IP. This can sometimes take upto 5 miniutes.

Is there a solution to this problem? There is one single destination global 
address. Is there a way to force the usage of the same IP from the NAT pool for 
all NAT requests from a particular source IP?
Platform is7206-vxr with NPE-G2

Thanks in advance


Nasir Shaikh 
This email contains information from BT Nederland N.V., which may be privileged 
or confidential. 
It's meant only for the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the 
intended recipient, note that disclosing, copying, distributing or using this 
information is prohibited.  
If you have received this email in error, please let me know immediately on the 
email address above.
We monitor our systems, and may record your emails.

BT Nederland N.V. 
Registered office:  Offices Minerva and Mercurius, Herikerbergweg 2, 1101 CM 
Amsterdam
Registered at the Amsterdam Chamber of Commerce no:  33296214



_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Reply via email to