Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is there pros and cons of using route-maps vs access-lists for network address translation on a cisco router?

share|improve this question
up vote 2 down vote accepted

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.

share|improve this answer

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

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.