Using Smoothwall Express With a Cisco Layer 3 Switch?

[FN-GM]

Well if you put 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 it will do the same thing? It will tell everything to go to smoothie.

 

Without the ip routes the clients will have no idea how to get to smoothwall.

[twin--turbo]

0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1

 

tells the clients how to get to the smoothwall. the client DG should be the IP of their vlan.

 

adding an ip to a vlan interface automatically adds routing to tell the cisco that 172.20.0.x is on vlan A and 172.20.0.x is on vlan b and 192.168.0.x is on vlan c

 

rob

Edited November 21, 2012 by twin--turbo

[twin--turbo]

 

Without the ip routes the clients will have no idea how to get to smoothwall.

 

your ip routes do not tell the clients how to get to the smoothwall, they tell the Cisco how to get to the clients but it's trying to say they are via the smoothwall.

 

Rob

Edited November 21, 2012 by twin--turbo

[FN-GM]

adding an ip to a vlan interface automaticaly adds routing to tell the cisco that 172.20.0.x is on vlan A and 172.20.0.x is on vlan b and 192.168.0.x is on vlan c

 

I know that i have that setup.

 

Your telling me to add 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1

 

How is it any different from adding the below? Apart from it applies to all vlans not just the defined ones.

 

ip route 172.20.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.1

ip route 172.20.2.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.1

 

The first ip route on this post will cause smoothwall not be able to get back to the clients as well as the ones i made?

Edited November 21, 2012 by FN-GM

[twin--turbo]

Remove your routes.

 

no ip route 172.20.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.1

no ip route 172.20.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.1

 

then do a

 

show ip route

 

you should see two routes for the 172 networks

 

this is clipped output of my router here.

=======================

C 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected , vlan1

C 192.168.2.0/24 is directly connected , vlan2

S 0.0.0.0/0 is directly connected, Dialer0

 

 

 

C is a directly connected route

S is a Statically created route ( using ip route ) in this case via the DSL dialer but could be an IP.

 

 

my only ip route command is

 

ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Dialer0

 

Rob

Edited November 21, 2012 by twin--turbo
mistype routing -> route

[FN-GM]

But you still havent answered the question. Why would the specific ones not work and the one you say will work?

[twin--turbo]

I know that i have that setup.

 

Your telling me to add 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1

 

How is it any different from adding the below? Apart from it applies to all vlans not just the defined ones.

 

ip route 172.20.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.1

ip route 172.20.2.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.1

 

The first ip route on this post will cause smoothwall not be able to get back to the clients as well as the ones i made?

 

your ip route commands say that the smoothwall is the next hop for the 172.x.x.x networks, the smoothwall is NOT the next hop for the 172.x.x.x network the cisco itself has these networks directly connected, it has already knows about them.

 

the smoothwall needs to know that the cisco is the next hop for 172.20.1.0/24 and 172.20.2.0/24

 

Rob

[FN-GM]

Yes but again why would your command not say the same thing as mine? Edited November 21, 2012 by FN-GM

[twin--turbo]

But you still havent answered the question. Why would the specific ones not work and the one you say will work?

 

I have answered it about 5 times..

your "ip route" are saying the networks are accessible via the smoothwall and they are not, they are accessible via their respective vlans.

 

 

Yours if it even sort of worked.

Packet arrives at cisco from 172.20.0.5 to go to 172.20.1.10

routing table says that 172.20.1.10 is accessible via 192.168.0.1

192.168.0.1 says nope don't have that network.

 

packet arrives at cisco from 172.20.0.5 to go to 8.8.8.8

routing table says I have no route to that host.

 

mine.

Packet arrives at cisco from 172.20.0.5 to go to 172.20.1.10

routing table says that 172.20.1.10 is accessible via the directly connected vlan ip 172.20.1.1

packet routed out of vlan interface 172.20.1.1

 

packet arrives at cisco from 172.20.0.5 to go to 8.8.8.8

routing table says default route is 192.168.0.1

packet goes to smoothwall to 8.8.8.8 (via many hops) back to smoothwall

packet arrives at smoothwall from 8.8.8.8 destined for 172.20.0.5,

smoothwall says 172.20.0.5 is accessible via 192.168.0.2(cisco)

cisco says that 172.20.0.5 is accessible via the directly connected vlan ip 172.20.0.1

packet routed out of vlan interface 172.20.0.1

 

 

 

Rob

Edited November 21, 2012 by twin--turbo

[twin--turbo]

given my sample config in post 60...

 

Cisco

on the cisco showing the routing table with

 

sh ip route

 

C 192.168.0.0 directly connected , vlan 1

C 172.20.1.0/24 directly connected , vlan2

C 172.20.2.0/24 directly connected , vlan3

S 0.0.0.0/0 via 192.168.1.1

 

So packets to 172.20.1.x -> out vlan2

So packets to 172.20.2.x -> out vlan3

So packets to 192.168.1.x -> out vlan1

any other packets , to go to 192.168.1.1 which can be found -> out vlan1

 

 

smoothwall routing table

0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 "ip of ISP DG" on wan1

192.168.0.1/24 eth0 ( or whatever they call their interfaces)

172.20.1.x/24 (next hop) 192.168.1.2 via eth0

172.20.2.x/24 (next hop) 192.168.1.2 via eth0

 

So packets to 172.20.1.x can be found via 192.168.1.2 which is on via eth0

So packets to 172.20.2.x can be found via 192.168.1.2 which is on via eth0

So packets to 192.168.1.x can be found on eth0

any other packets , to go to "ip of ISP DG" on wan1

 

 

Rob

[FN-GM]

Im going to put this on a back burner for a while. I emailed someone who deals with Cisco stuff all day every day said my static routes will work. Im rather confused. I will try out all mixes myself and see what happens.

 

Thanks for the help.

[twin--turbo]

Im going to put this on a back burner for a while. I emailed someone who deals with Cisco stuff all day every day said my static routes will work. Im rather confused. I will try out all mixes myself and see what happens.

 

Thanks for the help.

 

the commands are valid, the parameters are not in this instance given the first diagram. It's simple routing and platform independant.

 

I am not just quoting exampls, I have regular 1st hand experience of cisco routing, switching, firewall and IPT.

 

 

Don't give up just yet, post up your entire 3560 config (less the security) , and an output of sh vlan , and a screenshot of the smoothwall routing screen.... We can go from there.

 

 

Rob

[FN-GM]

I havent got smoothwall running yet. I had it on a VMware box and it died today so i need to find something else. I cleared allot of jobs today at work so hopefully i can sit down and look at it properly tomorrow.

[twin--turbo]

I havent got smoothwall running yet. I had it on a VMware box and it died today so i need to find something else. I cleared allot of jobs today at work so hopefully i can sit down and look at it properly tomorrow.

 

does not realy matter if it's smoooooooov , or something else with a routing table ( smooth, clear, pfs, draytek.... or another L3 cisco )

 

Rob

[SPSTech]

This post has been dormant for a bit. I have a very similar question, should I post it here or start a new thread?