Is there pros and cons of using route-maps vs access-lists for network address translation on a cisco router?
2 Answers
A quick bit of Googling found this article - looks like the route-map implementation provides per-flow NAT entries, rather than per-destination. In cases where you have lots of NATted traffic between the same two end points, this might be helpful in troubleshooting what is going wrong with a particular flow.
Route-maps also allow you to perform policy-based routing with NAT using the 'set ip next-hop' command within the route-map.
I've never looked into the route-map implementation, but one thing I would be interested in finding out is the relative throughput of the two implementations - I'd particularly expect that use of 'set ip next-hop' would have an impact on performance.

- 10,296
- 8
- 41
- 62
AFAIK, route-maps can match against extended access lists, whereas "ip nat inside source list" supports standard access lists only.

- 1,520
- 9
- 8