Hi Chris
I'm stuck again, here's a refresher.
Server#1 192.168.3.20/24
|
|
|
|LAN IP 192.168.3.1/24
---------
monowall#1
---------
|WAN IP = 10.0.0.1/30
|
|
|
|
|WAN IP = 10.0.0.2/30
---------
monowall#2
---------
|OPT1 IP 192.168.22.1/24
|
|
|
|
|eth0 IP = 192.168.22.3/24
------------
Linux Router
------------
|eth1 IP = 192.168.100.1/24
|
|
|
Server#2 192.168.100.2/24
So far my routing allows me to ping from Server#1 all the way through to
192.168.22.3 (Linux Router)
Server#2 can ping all the way to 10.0.0.1 (monowall#1)
I'm getting stuck on the static routing, heres what I have:
Advanced outbound NAT turn on at both monowalls
monowall#1 default gateway is 10.0.0.2
monowall#2 default gaetway is 10.0.0.1
Linux Router default gateway is 192.168.22.1 (Is this correct for
allowing Server#1 to connect to Server#2?)
STATIC ROUTES
=============
monowall#1
--------- ------- -------
INTERFACE NETWORK GATEWAY
--------- ------- -------
WAN 192.168.100.0/24 10.0.0.2
WAN 192.168.22.0/24 10.0.0.2
monowall#2
--------- ------- -------
INTERFACE NETWORK GATEWAY
--------- ------- -------
WAN 192.168.3.0/24 10.0.0.1
OPT1 192.168.100.0/24 192.168.22.3
Linux Router
--------- ------- -------
INTERFACE NETWORK GATEWAY
--------- ------- -------
no static routes added, default gateway is 192.168.22.1
------------------------------------------
I need to be able to ping from Server#1 to Server#2 and vice versa.
Where am I going wrong?
Chris Buechler wrote:
>On 11/30/05, Mark Wass <mark dot wass at market dash analyst dot com> wrote:
>
>
>> Sorry Chris, that was a question. Not a statement
>>
>>
>>
>
>Well, mine was a statement and a question at the same time. :)
>Should have read "yes. Did you disable NAT?"
>
>
>
>
>
>> Can I route these private subnets. Take a look at my original email and
>>you'll see what I want to do :-)
>>
>>
>>
>
>yeah, i missed the earlier part of this thread. Is it possible?
>Yeah. pretty? absolutely not. But if you absolutely must set it up
>this way...
>
>1) Do the m0n0walls have default gateway entries? if so, what are
>they? if you're just routing these private subnets, they aren't
>required, but whether or not they're defined and what they're defined
>as could have some impact.
>2) as depicted in that diagram, the static route on m0n0wall #2 needs
>to be on the WAN interface, not LAN as you showed (unless that was a
>typo). m0n0 #2 may also need a route on the WAN to 192.168.100.0/24,
>depending on the answer to the above.
>3) I'd enable outbound NAT on both of them to completely disable NAT
>(no rules at all), then I'd probably do a 1:1 mapping between a
>192.168.22. IP and server 1's 192.168.3. IP, and add proxy arp on that
>.22. IP too. From there, as long as the proper firewall rules are in
>place, everything should work.
>
>-Chris
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
>
>
>
>
>
| 