When you tried Scenario A, did you also do as Falcor suggested, and have your ISP route all traffic
to your WAN? It is obvious that I need to re-subnet, which is fine (I just inherited this set up,
and it's clear that we will need to make some DNS changes). If I understand Falcor right, I would do
x.x.x.251/29 with gateway x.x.x.249
x.x.x.240/29 and assign gateway of x.x.x.241 on each machine
Do I still need my ISP to route all traffic bound for x.x.x.240/28 to x.x.x.251? And will the DMZ
machines be accessible via public IPs?
Thanks very much for your help,
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 12:25:30 -0600
"Brian Buys" <bbuys at tritel dot com> wrote:
> I have tried to make a similar setup work on m0n0wall for a few weeks now.
> After searching the archives and doing several tests of my own, I determined
> that two methods were available, each with a drawback that I could not live
> Scenario A:
> Subnet my /28 network from ISP, giving half to WAN interface and half to DMZ
> interface. Declaring the /29 subnets on each interface allowed it to work
> as Falcor suggested in his reply, but with one problem: I could not access
> the DMZ from WAN. DMZ could get out to WAN, but incoming WAN traffic could
> not reach the DMZ machines when they were publicly addressed. LAN to DMZ
> (and reverse) worked fine.
> Research into the archives pointed to m0n0wall wanting to perform NAT to the
> DMZ, which was fouling things up on the incoming side. One workaround that
> I read about was to *enable* advanced NAT rules, effectively stopping
> m0n0wall from trying to build a NAT rule for the DMZ. I tried this from a
> defaulted configuration but still could not get it to work any differently.
> It seemed like that would be the answer, but that is the point at which I
> stopped pursuing it (for the time being). Enabling advanced NAT may still
> be the answer, I may have just missed some other step.
> Scenario B:
> The alternative to subnetting was to bridge the DMZ interface to the WAN
> interface. This worked as well, but the drawback to it was that now my LAN
> could not access the DMZ machines! This was unacceptable as well, since my
> entire goal was to leave the DMZ machines publicly addressable, yet
> reachable from both LAN side and WAN side.
> While I haven't properly answered your original question, I thought I would
> add my findings to the discussion to see if it might help you (and me) reach
> a solution. One thing I have not done is to request that my ISP direct all
> traffic to my WAN interface's IP address. Perhaps if I have them do that
> the routing will work properly as suggested.
> Of note, in both of my scenarios I wrote *.* rules for all interfaces and
> watched the firewall logs for blocked packets to insure it wasn't the fw
> stopping the communication attempts.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Falcor" <falcor at netassassin dot com>
> To: "Jeanne" <techielists at regionalhelpwanted dot com>
> Cc: <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 8:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] newbie DMZ question
> > unless you change the subnet you need to instruct the machines on your
> > DMZ to use x.x.x.241 as the gateway.
> > The proper way to do this would be to have the ISP route all traffic for
> > x.x.x.240/28 to your WAN interface. Then subnet the /28 and assign the
> > subnets to your DMZ setting the proper subnet mask for each interface so
> > it reflects your division of the network. If you did this then you
> > would end up with a gateway IP for the DMZ interface, and the internal
> > route statement on the firewall would understand sending traffic to the
> > different networks. Then you would need to add rules allowing traffic
> > to/from the DMZ etc.
> > If you don't do it this way then you will need to setup ARP forwarded IP
> > addresses from the firewall's WAN interface to the DMZ hosts. Not so
> > good to do for your setup.
> > Someone may have another trick, but that is the proper way of doing this
> > no matter what firewall / router you are using.
> > The difference is that your 3com probably did the subnet mask for you,
> > and although there were probably issues with SAP and RIP and such on
> > your DMZ segments the 3com accommodated it. E.g. you specified an IP
> > range, and it did the bit math but the servers still had /28 subnet masks.
> > Jeanne wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >I am replacing a 3com firewall and need to keep the IP addressing as is.
> Nat/Firewall is working fine for the LAN. I cannot configure the DMZ.
> Machines on the DMZ cannot ping the Wan or the Gateway.
> > >
> > >ISP issued block: x.x.x.240/28
> > >WAN x.x.x.251/28
> > >ISP designated gateway for this block: x.x.x.241
> > >Machines in the DMZ have public IPs within this x.x.x.240/28 block. For
> example, our web server is x.x.x.252 with a gateway of x.x.x.251, and an ftp
> server is x.x.x.246. The 3com allows for 2 DMZ ranges of x.x.x.242-250 and
> 252-254. m0n0wall appears to allow only a single DMZ net.
> > >
> > >For the moment I am allowing all traffic to and from the DMZ:
> > >Wan interface -- Proto: * Source: DMZ Net Port: * Destination: * Port: *
> > >DMZ Interface -- Proto: * Source: * Port: * Destination: DMZ net Port: *
> > >
> > >Please know that I have searched the archives, but I'm still stumped.
> Thanks for your time.
> > >
> > >Cheers,
> > >
> > >Jeanne
> > >
> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >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