[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Lonnie Abelbeck <lists at lonnie dot abelbeck dot com>
 To:  m0n0wall List <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Extending factory network
 Date:  Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:14:16 -0600
Beau,

This is surely an interesting puzzle...

Is it true that WRAP2 has and empty WAN port?  Could we be seeing a  
side effect of that in the LAN -> OPT1 routing in WRAP2?

Grasping at straws.

Lonnie


On Feb 11, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Beau Woods wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have managed to set this all up with one problem.  I have set   
> <WRAP1 AP
> LAN 192.168.1.2   and Bridged OPT1 to LAN>  <WRAP2 BSS
> WAN(Wireless)192.168.1.251 LAN 192.168.2.1>.  I have enabled Advanced
> outbound NAT and created ANY,ANY,ANY rules for all interfaces on  
> both boxes.
> I made a static route on WRAP1 WAN to goto 192.168.2.0 gw  
> 192.168.1.251.
> Now I can ping everything from WRAP1 including the computer on  
> WRAP2 however
> I cannot ping WRAP1 from the computer on WRAP2 (I can ping WRAP1  
> from WRAP2
> WAN interface but not the LAN interface).
>
> Any help please?
>
> Beau
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Beau Woods [mailto:info at mazatecsolutions dot com dot au]
> Sent: Sunday, 11 February 2007 3:14 PM
> To: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Subject: RE: [m0n0wall] Extending factory network
>
> Hi I have uploaded a diagram to www.vicioustechnology.au.com/ 
> NETWORK.gif
> I need to leave the main network set the way it is if possible.
>
> Thanks,
> Beau
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Sharp [mailto:leesharp at hal dash pc dot org]
> Sent: Sunday, 11 February 2007 2:28 PM
> To: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] Extending factory network
>
> krt wrote:
>> Lee Sharp wrote:
>>> Beau Woods wrote:
>
>>>> Lee - I am using the wrap units because we already have them  
>>>> sitting
>>>> here.
>
>>>> So if I set it up so the <Wrap1 (at SBS server) (Lan 192.168.1.250)
>>>> (Wireless 172.16.0.1)>  <Wrap2 (Wireless 172.16.0.2) (Lan  
>>>> 192.168.2.250
>>>> DHCP) then enable advanced outbound nat and create pass any/any/any
>>>> rules on
>>>> all interfaces, will this work?  What static routes need to be  
>>>> in place?
>
>>> Windows networking hates subnets.  It just does not route well.  Set
>>> them up as switches.  You might consider Damn Small Linux.  That way
>>> Windows doesn't get confused.
>
>> By default it's not setup very well for a routed network.  It is
>> entirely possible to do so over a routed network, however.
>
> It is possible to drive a nail with a Phillips screwdriver.  I have  
> even
> done so.  A hammer is just so much better. :)
>
> 			Lee
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.35/680 - Release Date:  
> 10/02/2007
> 9:15 PM
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.35/680 - Release Date:  
> 10/02/2007
> 9:15 PM
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>