Search the Community

Hello everyone, A couple of questions regarding our Aruba Controller 3400 Managed Wireless system with 24 AP-105's. 1. We have been quoted for a 16 AP license upgrade to enable us to get one of the blocks on the Aruba system (Its currently on a 3COM system). Part of the quote has "Policy Enforcement Firewall" and "Wireless Intrusion Protection Module". These have added a considerable amount to the quote. My question is, are they required for the APs to work or can they be removed? 2. Does the 3400 controller support NAT? I only ask as our LEA provided Network Addresses are 10.208.208.0/21 so that only gives us 2,046 IP addresses. Therefore, to allow us the flexibility of providing BYOD capabilities, it would be good to be able to use another range of addresses, such as, 192.168.x.x. Would this be a feasible solution/idea? Any help and advice on these above points would be gratefully received. Thanks in advance. J_Worth.

Hey peeps, I am in the process of setting up OWA for the college, something I have never done before. I managed to setup OWA on the Exchange Server Localhost now I just need to find out how I can access it via the internet. After a lot of googling and talking to some companies that have done this before a quick an easy method is to apparently use a spare External IP address (which I have obtained from my ISP) and NAT that publc IP to my Private IP address. I have an internal and external ISA servers and a Exchange Server. I just don't know where to start really. Do I set up that NAT forward on the ISA server? Exchange is 2007 and Threat Management Gateway 2010 on the ISA. I also have a SSL certificate from my ISP which is setup, so obviously that needs to be applied to the whole login bit, but for now, I just need a push in the right direction. I have also looked at DMZs etc, but quick and easy for now, experimentation later lol Any help would be much appreciated, thanks guys!! /Dan

Hello Im looking at setting up a VPN. Our network is connected to a larger network which in turn is connected to the internet. Ive just installed smoothwall express and was all excited by the built in VPN capability which allows you to connect to smoothwall protected lans together over the net via ipsec VPN. However. It wants the red (external) interface to have a static, public facing IP. Then theres stuff about NAT getting in the way (dont fully understand this - new sorry) Can the larger network assign my smoothwall box a public facing IP (provided from its ISP i presume)? Will NAT get in the way? Is NAT always used when you connect to the internet via a 2nd netwrok like this? Whats the difference between a NATed connection in this scenario and a Routed connection or are they one in the same? We dont have to use smoothwall vpn, would open vpn be easier to setup, or tinc? Hope someone can help. Regards Gary

I am trying to set up a Smoothwall Express 3.0 proxy to allow my school network to connect to the internet supplied by our county council. The new setup is to replace an old Cobalt Qube that has failed after 9 years continuous service (PSU problem) The old proxy used Squid and with the exception of occasional problems caused by log files accumulating faster than the cron job to rotate them was very reliable. The academic network (270+ computers) is a Windows 2003 domain. Network mask 255.255.0.0. we use the 10.0.xxx.xxx IP range. Almost all the computers gain their addresses via DHCP. A group policy sets the proxy settings used by IE to connect via 10.0.0.1 using port 3128. The county supply us with a single outward facing static IP address 172.xxx.xxx.xxx, and the addresses of primary and secondary DNS servers. We have to use port 3128 to connect to their smoothwall proxy server c***.xxx.sch.uk. Physically the smoothwall server lies between the school network and the county WAN connected via a pair of NICs If as an administrator I manually enter c***.xxx.sch.uk. and port 3128 into the IE LAN settings I can connect to the internet. This must be going through the smoothwall proxy as there is no other physical path it can take. But no matter what settings I try in the smoothwall configuration I cannot get machines to connect via 10.0.0.1:3128. I would welcome any suggestions as how to proceed. Bob

HI All We're patiently waiting for a replacement WiFi controller to get the school up and wireless again. Several people have asked about enabling hot-spots on the school desktops so student laptops (which are actually school devices) can get to the net using teachers' mobiles. I said no to that straightaway for obvious reasons. The next proposal was to install a wireless hub in the classroom and connect to the school network via the hub. That has got me stuck. Most cheap home hubs are their own DHCP servers so that when any school device connects they will be given an IP from the hub and not the school's DHCP setup. Is there a way to get IP addresses from our school's DHCP server to devices that are connected to a wifi hub and therefore allow school laptops to talk to our domain etc as if they were connected to a network point in the room? Is this do-able with NAT or some other clever way of translating IPs? Never even thought of doing this before so no idea where to start.

Hello everyone, I am currently trialling pfSense on our school network, however, I have an issue that I can't get my head around and was just wondering if anyone out there has any ideas. Here is the setup: 10.10.10.0/21 ---> pfSense ---> 10.208.208.0/21 ---> LEA Router I am currently unable to access the internet on the 10.10.10.0/21 network as I need to have NAT implemented due to the fact that the LEA Router does not know that the 10.10.10.0/21 network exists and we can't change the LEA Router to have a route to 10.10.10.0/21. Therefore, how would I setup NAT on the pfSense box so that everything behind it (in 10.10.10.0/21) has access to the internet? Many thanks. J.Worth

I have a growing population of XBox users who want to use XBox Live. They are all on my network sharing a single internet-facing IP address in a standard many-to-one NAT setup. The XBox tests their connectivity and gives it a rating of "Strict NAT". It recommends port numbers that I should "open". I have checked and those ports are not blocked by the firewall. The next step would be port forwarding, but obviously I could only do that for one lucky user. It also recommends enabling UPnP, but Sonicwall does not support UPnP. I doubt UPnP would work in a shared environment even if they did. Research indicates that my Sonicwall NSA4500 simply will not support it no matter what I do. At best I could buy enough internet-facing IP addresses to give each of them one-to-one NAT and even then they'd only get up to a rating of "Moderate NAT". Does anyone here have a similar configuration, either with a Sonicwall firewall or a different brand?

Can anyone explain if there is a problem with double nating if set up correctly, I support a large primary school’s network in Sefton, and it has 3 Server and 150 PCs & Laptops. It is setup behind a Linux gateway\proxy box which acts as a gateway for the network, this box has two network cards and the second network card is attached directly to the local authority’s switch, where their responsibility ends. From my experience this is a normal setup for most school networks and I do support schools in other local authorities and there have been no issues with this type of setup. The local authority has put out it ICT support to a company called Arvato, whose technicians seem to go around the schools telling them that they should not have a proxy server on-site as it slows down the Internet and that they should be on the local authorities IP range, as double nating causes problems. The problem I have with this is that Sefton's network is like one large network, you can see any other machine on Sefton network and when it first launched there were lots of viruses spreading between sites if they were not protected by some firewall. I could understand it if they wanted to provide a managed service to the desktops, but they repeatedly insist that their responsibility ends at the switch. I understand the NAT adds legacy to a network, and a proxy server will slow down the first client to access a web page, but will speed up the subsequent request to the same page. But can anyone else see any good reasons not to have a proxy\gateway server at the point where your responsibility ends for your network, as from my perspective the benefits seem to outweigh the disadvantages. Thanks