[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Max Khitrov <maximkh at yahoo dot com>
 To:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] Help connecting two local subnets
 Date:  Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:09:34 -0800 (PST)
I don't need 2 dynamic IPs, but that's all that Comcast can give me.
Already pay extra $5 per month for the second one. Even their Pro
service has dynamic IPs (but leased for 6 months at a time) and any
searches on how to obtain static ones bring up nothing. This is


The reason I need 2 in the first place is because we need to have same
ports NATed to different servers, so distinguishing by IP is the only
option.

Regarding my last post, it seems that I figured it out now. I actually
needed a static route on both of the routers, the .2.0 had to map
192.168.1.0\24 through 192.168.2.1 (which seems strange, but
whatever...), and the .1.0 had to map 192.168.2.0 through 192.168.1.250
(changed from 254). Having both of those static routes seems to have
done the trick and I can now ping devices on the other subnet :)

--- JSimoneau at lmtcs dot com wrote:

> Just out of curiosity, why do you need two separate dynamic IP
> addresses?
> You could either have the two LANs share one public IP, or pay a
> small fee
> to have two static IP's instead, which monowall can make use of
> easily.
> Just trying to apply the KISS philosophy here.
> 
> Josh
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: maximkh at yahoo dot com [mailto:maximkh at yahoo dot com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 2:17 PM
> To: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Subject: RE: [m0n0wall] Help connecting two local subnets
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> Thanks for the advice, but the reason I need 2 routers is because I
> need 2
> WAN IPs, and since m0n0wall doesn't support more then 1 dynamic IP, I
> have
> to have two separate devices to accomplish this.
> 
> As for my original problem, I actually realized that I needed the
> static
> route, just not on the .2.0 router, but on the .1.0. I made that
> change,
> modified some firewall rules and can now ping the .2.0 network from
> .1.0,
> and the 192.168.1.1 IP from .2.0. The problem now is that I can't
> pint
> anything on the .1.0 network other then the router which seems kinda
> odd.
> Oh well, at least I'm making progress :)
> 
> --- JSimoneau at lmtcs dot com wrote:
> > Greetings,
> > 
> > This is over-complicated, unless you can give a reason why you need
> to 
> > do all this or need more than one router. You can just install a 
> > single monowall with three interfaces and be done with it.
> Interface 1 
> > for the WAN connected straight to the cablemodem, interface 2 for
> LAN1 
> > (.1.0) and interface 3 for LAN2 (.2.0). You can keep each of the
> LANs 
> > completely separate if you like, only making a few pinholes between
> 
> > them so users can access shared printers between the lans.
> > 
> > This way you can manage everything from one router and eliminate a 
> > switch or two. I have the same thing running at more than one
> location 
> > with great success.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Josh Simoneau
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: maximkh at yahoo dot com [mailto:maximkh at yahoo dot com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 12:48 PM
> > To: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> > Subject: [m0n0wall] Help connecting two local subnets
> > 
> > Hi guys, having a bit of trouble with this and can't figure out
> why.
> > Basically my setup is this: cable modem connects to a switch, that 
> > switch connects to two separate routers, one serves 192.168.1.0/24 
> > network and the other serves 192.168.2.0/24 network. The .1.0
> router 
> > connects a LAN interface to another switch to which all of its
> hosts 
> > are connected.
> > The
> > .2.0 connects to a third switch on the LAN interface to which the
> .2.0 
> > hosts is connected, and I also just installed an OPT1 interface
> which 
> > is connected to the .1.0 switch.
> > 
> > Basically we have a number of devices (like network printers) on
> the 
> > .1.0 network that the .2.0 guys need to be able to access. I 
> > configured the
> > OPT1 interface with 192.168.1.254/24, set up a static route on the
> LAN 
> > interface with destination 192.168.1.0/24 and gateway
> 192.168.1.254.
> > At
> > this point it looks as though I should be able to access the other 
> > network, but so far I can't ping anything over there.
> > The "Enable filtering bridge" is unchecked, so the firewall
> shouldn't 
> > be blocking packets (and there's nothing in the firewall log about 
> > this).
> > 
> > Any ideas on what I'm missing? In the system log I'm getting this
> when 
> > I try to ping anything over there:
> > 
> > kernel: arpresolve: can't allocate llinfo for 192.168.1.254rt
> > kernel: arplookup 192.168.1.254 failed: host is not on local
> network
> > 
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> > For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> > 
> > 
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> > For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> > 
> > 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> 
>