[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Joe Lagreca <lagreca at gmail dot com>
 To:  Bryan Brayton <bryan at sonicburst dot net>, Monowall List <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: Re: [m0n0wall] How to subnet OPT1 and still offer DHCP for each subnet?
 Date:  Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:14:04 -0700
I believe that can be done, however the connection from my office to
my clients office will be via wireless, which is on the LAN side.  So
I was just going to ignore the WAN port alltogether.  I was going to
turn DHCP on for the client LAN and give clients their DHCP from the
CPE Linksys.

Joe


On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:01:22 -0400, Bryan Brayton <bryan at sonicburst dot net> wrote:
> Joe,
> 
> You should be able to turn off NAT on the client routers and just use
> them as straight routers, correct?  I know my linksys can work as an
> honest to goodness router.
> 
> Bryan
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Lagreca [mailto:lagreca at gmail dot com]
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 1:26 AM
> To: Bryan Brayton
> Cc: Fred Wright; m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Subject: Re: Re: [m0n0wall] How to subnet OPT1 and still offer DHCP for
> each subnet?
> 
> Bryan,
> 
> I'm sorry for the confusion, I may have thrown a few ideas around at
> once.  However my goal the whole time has been to try and prevent a
> NAT behind another NAT.
> 
> My m0n0 wall be doing a NAT for OPT1, and all my clients will hang off
> of that.  If I subnet OPT1 I believe I can prevent a NAT behind NAT
> situation.
> 
> The easiest situation would have been to assign each client an
> internal IP address, and then do a NAT on that to create their own
> private internal network.
> 
> I was just afraid of any support issues with NAT behind NAT, thinking
> that some things may not work correctly.  If I go with subnetting, it
> will eliminate any of those problems.
> 
> I hope I make more sense now.
> 
> BTW, I will be using Linksys WRT54G's at my main AP and also at the
> client end.  They are running Sveasoft firmware, which supports OSPF
> routing.  However that is a whole new ball game that I'm not sure I
> wanna get into right now.
> 
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:56:21 -0400, Bryan Brayton <bryan at sonicburst dot net>
> wrote:
> > Maybe I'm missing something here, but didn't Joe have client routers
> in
> > the mix?
> >
> > So without IP aliases, but with static routes on the m0n0 on the LAN
> (or
> > OPT or whatever) pointing at the various internal routers, wouldn't
> this
> > work:
> >
> >    WAN
> >     |
> > Joe's M0n0 box
> >     |
> >    LAN 10.1.0.1/24
> >     |
> >     |
> >     |----------------------------------------
> >     |                                       |
> > Client 1 Router WAN 10.1.0.2/24          Client 2 Router WAN
> 10.1.0.3/24
> >     |   (default rt 10.1.0.1)               |    (default rt 10.1.0.1)
> >     |                                       |
> > Client 1 Router                          Client 2 Router
> >     |                                       |
> > Client 1 Router LAN 10.1.1.1/24          Client 2 Router LAN
> 10.1.2.1/24
> >     |                                       |
> >     |                                       |
> >     |                                       |
> >     |                                       |
> > Client 1 LAN (default gw 10.1.1.1)       Client 2 LAN (default gw
> > 10.1.2.1)
> >
> > If dynamic routing was supported, you wouldn't have to manually enter
> > the routes.  You will need firewalling on the client routers to
> prevent
> > inter-client communication.
> >
> > Correct me if I'm wrong.  I'm sure I'll regret that :)
> >
> > -Bryan
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com> : Outbound message clean.
> 
> Virus Database (VPS): 0434-1, 08/17/2004
> Tested on: 8/20/2004 7:01:22 AM
> 
> 
> avast! - copyright (c) 2000-2004 ALWIL Software.
> 
>