Urgent problem with Outgoing email! 1

[nelsonsk2]

I know this has been addressed in a couple of very old threads and neither resolved my issue so I'm starting fresh.

I have a Cisco 1800 router. We have recently brought a new Exchange Server 2010 server online. It is sending and receiving with only one problem. All outbound email is routing through one IP y.y.y.130 but I need it to route through y.y.y.132. That IP is the same IP our old server was routing through. I've taken the old server off-line and made the changes to the IP Nat removing the old servers internal IP and replacing those with the new servers IP's. I haven't made any changes to the ACL as it only had the entry forcing SMTP through the .132 IP. I've included the relevant IP Nat and ACL entries below.

Currently I have two domains rejecting our emails because of DNS/rDNS issues. I need to resolve this and would prefer to route SMTP properly rather than revising my PTR's with my ISP. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

x.x.x = inside
y.y.y = outside

IP NAT Translation entries:
ip nat inside source static tcp y.y.y.132:25 x.x.x.168:25
ip nat inside source static tcp y.y.y.132:80 x.x.x.168:80
ip nat inside source static tcp y.y.y.132:443 x.x.x.168:443

Extended IP access list 2525
10 permit tcp host y.y.y.132 eq smtp any
30 permit tcp host y.y.y.132 any eq 443

I saw a couple of threads that discussed route maps but don't quite understand those and not sure why I need that since settings above worked before with the other server.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

 

[unclerico]

try creating a one-to-one rule as opposed to using PAT:

ip nat inside source static x.x.x.168 y.y.y.132

you must have a Dynamic PAT entry listed in there that is using .130 as the overload address.

 

[IAMBILLGATES]

10 permit tcp host y.y.y.132 eq smtp any
30 permit tcp host y.y.y.132 any eq 443

Shouldn't 30 be eq 443 any?
I would also check to see if you need any of these ports open.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb331973.aspx

 

[nelsonsk2]

The one to one rule seemed to do the trick. Thanks.