RE: Simple route/gateway forwarding

"Brian Johnson" <[email protected]> Tue, 6 Apr 2010 20:06:45 -0500
Newsgroups gmane.org.operators.internet-access
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Another option would be to use sub-interfaces and dot1q. then plug the
outside interface into a trunk port on a vlan aware switch and plug
provider a into a vlan A access port and plug provider B into a vlan B
access port.

- Brian


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:list-bounces@inet-
> access.net] On Behalf Of James Smallacombe
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 4:30 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Simple route/gateway forwarding
> 
> 
> For that to work, they'd need another FastEther interface in the 2811.
> The reason is because the internal 2811 Ether NATs 192.168 in to a
> Provider A IP out on the External Ether.  Obviously, Provider B won't
> route Provider A's IP.  IOS won't NAT to a secondary IP, AFAIK.
> 
> I just noticed that Cisco has a fairly recent (to me, anyway) way to
do
> good failover using SLAs.
> 
> http://www.nil.com/ipcorner/SmallSiteMultiHoming/
> 
> I assume however, that we are still back to needing another interface
> with
> Provider B's IP on the 2811.  That adds complexities regarding their
> already very complex NAT configuration...it has static port and other
> maps
> all over the place that all go to the existing FE1.
> 
> I think we're back to having a simple device to negotiate when
Provider
> A
> is down to re-route to provider B...the question is which side to put
> it
> on.
> 
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010, Henry Yen wrote:
> 
> > Why not just move the CPE-B router to the same segment as CPE-A, and
> then
> > let the 2811 do the "hard" work?
> >
> >   CPE-A          CPE-B
> >     |              |
> >     +--------------+
> >            |
> >          2811
> >            |
> >  --- i n t e r n a l ---
> >
> > Now you don't need to switch default gateways for your internal
> network,
> > either.  Or, is there something more complex you need to do?
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 16:31:20PM -0400, James Smallacombe wrote:
> >>
> >> Spot on.
> >>
> >> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, Brian Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >>> OK... is this a correct diagram?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  +-----------+          +------------+
> >>>  | 2811 RTR  |-PAT----->|  CPE-RTR A |
> >>>  +-----------+          +------------+
> >>>        | 192.168.7.1/21
> >>>        |
> >>>      /---\              +-----------+
> >>>     | LAN |-------------| CPE-RTR B |--PAT-->
> >>>      \---/              +-----------+
> >>>        |           192.168.7.10/21
> >>>        |
> >>>        | 192.168.7.x/21
> >>>    +--------+
> >>>    | CLIENT |
> >>>    +--------+
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> - Brian
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:list-bounces@inet-
> >>>> access.net] On Behalf Of James Smallacombe
> >>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 2:00 PM
> >>>> To: [email protected]
> >>>> Subject: RE: Simple route/gateway forwarding
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, Brian Johnson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> What you are trying to do is definitely possible. How you are
> >>> stating
> >>>>> this makes my head hurt. :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry...I can see how it looks super-complex, but in reality,
it's
> not
> >>>> too
> >>>> bad.
> >>>>
> >>>>> You have a LAN using the 192.168.7.0/24 network. This network
has
> >>> two
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually, it's using 192.168.0.0/21.  Nothing in there is
actually
> >>>> subnetted out, although, for example, 192.168.7.x is set aside
for
> >>>> network
> >>>> equipment and 192.168.3.x is set aside for workstations, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>>> externally facing routers and one internally facing router. The
> >>>>> internally facing router uses NAP (do you mean PAT, overloaded
> NAT?)
> >>>> and
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, like most NAT implementations like this, it is overloaded,
> not
> >>>> 1-to-1.
> >>>>
> >>>>> uses the 192.168.0.0/21 network internally.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>        +------------+     +------------+
> >>>>>        | Provider A |     | Provider B |
> >>>>>        +------------+     +------------+
> >>>>>              |                  |
> >>>>>        +-----------+      +-----------+
> >>>>>        | CPE-RTR A |      | CPE-RTR B |
> >>>>>        +-----------+      +-----------+
> >>>>>  192.168.7.1/24  \          / 192.168.7.10/24
> >>>>>                   \        /
> >>>>
> >>>> In the case of provider A, there is no customer access to their
> CPE
> >>>> router
> >>>> and it is not doing NAT.  NAT is being performed by the
customer's
> >>>> 2811.
> >>>> RFC 1918 to the internal Ether and provider A's "real" /26 on the
> >>>> external
> >>>> Ether.  Provider B's Netgear is on the same LAN as the 2811's
> internal
> >>>> Ether and performing NAT to B's upstream network.  We DO have
> access
> >>> to
> >>>> this B's Netgear.  I gave it 192.168.7.10/21 while the 2811 bas
> >>>> 192.168.7.1/21.
> >>>>
> >>>>>                 +------------+
> >>>>>                 | LAN SWITCH |
> >>>>>                 +------------+
> >>>>>                       |
> >>>>>                       | 192.168.7.2/24
> >>>>>                  +----------+               / ip route 0.0.0.0
> >>>> 0.0.0.0
> >>>>> 192.168.7.1
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a little off.  192.168.7.1/21 is on the 2811's internal
> Etherm
> >>>> while a real IP is on the external interface.  The Cisco has
> >>>>
> >>>> ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 real.ip.of.A's.CPE.router
> >>>>
> >>>>>                  | 2811 RTR | NAT/PAT   <--<  ip route
> 192.168.3.240
> >>>>> 255.255.255.255 192.168.7.10
> >>>>>                  +----------+               \
> >>>>
> >>>> That looks correct, above.
> >>>>
> >>>>>                       | 192.168.0.1/21
> >>>>
> >>>> You mean the 192.168.0.0/21 network above, right?
> >>>>
> >>>>> If this diagram is correct, and the CPE routers are configured
> >>>>> correctly, then packets bound for 192.168.3.240 WILL be
forwarded
> to
> >>>>> 192.168.7.10. What that router does with it is another question
> all
> >>>>> together.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you have access to the CPE routers? Are you using a routing
> >>>> protocol
> >>>>> or just static routes? You are dealing with all private IP
> addresses
> >>>> in
> >>>>> your example. Are they really all private IP addresses or are
> there
> >>>> some
> >>>>> public addresses in here?
> >>>>
> >>>> Just static routes.  Want to avoid RIP and the Netgear doesn't do
> >>> OSPF.
> >>>>
> >>>>> - Brian
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:list-bounces@inet-
> >>>>>> access.net] On Behalf Of James Smallacombe
> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:33 AM
> >>>>>> To: Inet-Access Mailing List
> >>>>>> Subject: Simple route/gateway forwarding
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is really basic, but since I've never tried it before (and
> >>> it's
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>> working), I want to see if it's possible, one way or another:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> customer has a network hooked up to provider A using provider's
> CPE
> >>>>>> router.  They also have a 2811 doing NAT, which is the default
> >>>> gateway
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>> the NAT'd network 192.168.0.0/21.  The 2811 then has a default
> >>> route
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>> the CPE router and a typical "internal" Ethernet on 192.168.7.1
> and
> >>>> an
> >>>>>> "external" Ethernet on Provider A's static IPs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To this, they add a second connection, a business broadband
> >>>> connection
> >>>>>> using a typical broadband router (NetGear, I believe) to
> provider
> >>> B.
> >>>>>> They know their provider A static IPs, won't route through
> provider
> >>>>> B's
> >>>>>> network, but certainly the NATed 192.168. network will.  I
stick
> >>> the
> >>>>>> Netgear on the same Ether as the 2811's internal interface and
> give
> >>>> it
> >>>>>> 192.168.7.10.  All workstations use a default gateway of
> >>>> 192.168.7.1.
> >>>>>> The
> >>>>>> idea is to be able to switch them over to 192.168.7.10 without
> >>>> having
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> change their settings, by just re-routing some networks on the
> >>> Cisco
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>> provider B.  I tried this as a test:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ip route 192.168.3.240 255.255.255.255 192.168.7.10
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Similar to a ppp /32 route.  However, all traffic from
> >>> 192.168.3.240
> >>>>>> still
> >>>>>> goes out the default route to provider A via the default route.
> Is
> >>>>>> there
> >>>>>> a way to make this work without subnetting 192.168.3.0 and
> putting
> >>>>>> aliases
> >>>>>> of it on one or both routers?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> James Smallacombe		      PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and
> Janitor
> >>>>>> [email protected]
> >>>>> http://3.am
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
>
=======================================================================
> >>>>>> ==
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Eat sushi frequently. - Avi
> >>>>>> [email protected] is the human contact address.
> >>>>>> [email protected] is the list posting address.
> >>>>>> See below URL for subscribe/unsubscribe and list options:
> >>>>>> http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list
> >>>>>
> >>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any
> >>>> attachments, is for the sole use of the
> >>>>> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged
> >>>> information. Any unauthorized review,
> >>>>> copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you
> are
> >>>> not the intended recipient, please
> >>>>> contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the
> >>>> original message. Thank you.
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Eat sushi frequently. - Avi
> >>>>> [email protected] is the human contact address.
> >>>>> [email protected] is the list posting address.
> >>>>> See below URL for subscribe/unsubscribe and list options:
> >>>>> http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> James Smallacombe		      PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and
Janitor
> >>>> [email protected]
> >>> http://3.am
> >>>>
> >>>
>
=======================================================================
> >>>> ==
> >>>> --
> >>>> Eat sushi frequently. - Avi
> >>>> [email protected] is the human contact address.
> >>>> [email protected] is the list posting address.
> >>>> See below URL for subscribe/unsubscribe and list options:
> >>>> http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list
> >>> --
> >>> Eat sushi frequently. - Avi
> >>> [email protected] is the human contact address.
> >>> [email protected] is the list posting address.
> >>> See below URL for subscribe/unsubscribe and list options:
> >>> http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list
> >>>
> >>
> >> James Smallacombe		      PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor
> >> [email protected]
http://3.am
> >>
>
=======================================================================
> ==
> >> --
> >> Eat sushi frequently. - Avi
> >> [email protected] is the human contact address.
> >> [email protected] is the list posting address.
> >> See below URL for subscribe/unsubscribe and list options:
> >> http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list
> >
> > --
> > Henry Yen                                       Aegis Information
> Systems, Inc.
> > Senior Systems Programmer                       Hicksville, New York
> > --
> > Eat sushi frequently. - Avi
> > [email protected] is the human contact address.
> > [email protected] is the list posting address.
> > See below URL for subscribe/unsubscribe and list options:
> > http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list
> >
> 
> James Smallacombe		      PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor
> [email protected]
http://3.am
>
=======================================================================
> ==
> --
> Eat sushi frequently. - Avi
> [email protected] is the human contact address.
> [email protected] is the list posting address.
> See below URL for subscribe/unsubscribe and list options:
> http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list
-- 
Eat sushi frequently. - Avi
[email protected] is the human contact address.
[email protected] is the list posting address.
See below URL for subscribe/unsubscribe and list options:
http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list