F5F Stay Refreshed Power Users Networks Same subnet for both gateways

Same subnet for both gateways

Same subnet for both gateways

J
Jerryx01
Posting Freak
870
02-27-2018, 08:18 AM
#1
I need two gateways: 10.0.30.1 and 10.0.30.2. Each should have its own subnets. All devices in 10.0.30.0/24 should connect to 10.0.30.1, then route to 10.0.30.2 for specific networks. That way 10.0.30.1 can reach 10.0.20.0/24 and 10.0.21/24, while 10.0.30.2 handles 10.0.50.0/24 and 10.0.31.0/24. I want this setup to avoid extra interfaces on 10.0.30.1 and keep the virtual lab firewall separate. It’s a bit confusing but helps protect my network if the external firewall fails.
J
Jerryx01
02-27-2018, 08:18 AM #1

I need two gateways: 10.0.30.1 and 10.0.30.2. Each should have its own subnets. All devices in 10.0.30.0/24 should connect to 10.0.30.1, then route to 10.0.30.2 for specific networks. That way 10.0.30.1 can reach 10.0.20.0/24 and 10.0.21/24, while 10.0.30.2 handles 10.0.50.0/24 and 10.0.31.0/24. I want this setup to avoid extra interfaces on 10.0.30.1 and keep the virtual lab firewall separate. It’s a bit confusing but helps protect my network if the external firewall fails.

K
kingpin73
Member
80
02-27-2018, 05:16 PM
#2
The query asks about configuring network connections across systems, mentioning options for redundancy and IP addressing. It suggests a setup where multiple links can be managed together or with failover mechanisms.
K
kingpin73
02-27-2018, 05:16 PM #2

The query asks about configuring network connections across systems, mentioning options for redundancy and IP addressing. It suggests a setup where multiple links can be managed together or with failover mechanisms.

S
SillyKitty542
Member
68
03-01-2018, 05:45 PM
#3
It seems you're checking if the setup makes logical sense. The assumption about CARP handling failover is correct, but the connection between GW1 and GW2 needs clarification—without GW2 active, GW1 can't reach the networks behind it.
S
SillyKitty542
03-01-2018, 05:45 PM #3

It seems you're checking if the setup makes logical sense. The assumption about CARP handling failover is correct, but the connection between GW1 and GW2 needs clarification—without GW2 active, GW1 can't reach the networks behind it.

F
flav_57
Junior Member
27
03-03-2018, 06:30 PM
#4
It really comes down to your needs. If you only need a single internet connection, a Y fork is a good choice because it simplifies managing firewall rules and reduces complexity while keeping latency low. You might also consider VLANing for better segmentation.
F
flav_57
03-03-2018, 06:30 PM #4

It really comes down to your needs. If you only need a single internet connection, a Y fork is a good choice because it simplifies managing firewall rules and reduces complexity while keeping latency low. You might also consider VLANing for better segmentation.

K
KoffieMeister
Junior Member
31
03-03-2018, 11:26 PM
#5
It seems unclear what you're aiming for and which tools you're using. Visual aids help clarify things, so having diagrams would be beneficial. You'd need a link between your two routers, set up static routes through them, and create VLANs for each subnet on the connected router. The router must belong to the subnet it's managing.
K
KoffieMeister
03-03-2018, 11:26 PM #5

It seems unclear what you're aiming for and which tools you're using. Visual aids help clarify things, so having diagrams would be beneficial. You'd need a link between your two routers, set up static routes through them, and create VLANs for each subnet on the connected router. The router must belong to the subnet it's managing.

R
Riley5101
Junior Member
24
03-04-2018, 01:41 AM
#6
In short, you have three interfaces in the router: em0 connects to wan via 10.0.20.0/24 and 10.0.21/24 (possibly VLAN20/VLAN21), em1 connects to 10.0.31.0/24 and 10.0.50.0/24 (VLAN31/VLAN50), and em2 connects to 10.0.31.0/24 and 10.0.50.0/24. The routing rules suggest traffic flows from em1 to em0, then from em2 to em0, with em1 forwarding to em0 and em2 forwarding to em0. This setup relies on your physical configuration and capacity. If you need VLANs or precise subnetting, you could adjust block assignments. It all depends on your needs. I’d skip adding another node unless absolutely required, since it might create unnecessary complexity later—like extra routers for client VPNs that only connect to specific networks.
R
Riley5101
03-04-2018, 01:41 AM #6

In short, you have three interfaces in the router: em0 connects to wan via 10.0.20.0/24 and 10.0.21/24 (possibly VLAN20/VLAN21), em1 connects to 10.0.31.0/24 and 10.0.50.0/24 (VLAN31/VLAN50), and em2 connects to 10.0.31.0/24 and 10.0.50.0/24. The routing rules suggest traffic flows from em1 to em0, then from em2 to em0, with em1 forwarding to em0 and em2 forwarding to em0. This setup relies on your physical configuration and capacity. If you need VLANs or precise subnetting, you could adjust block assignments. It all depends on your needs. I’d skip adding another node unless absolutely required, since it might create unnecessary complexity later—like extra routers for client VPNs that only connect to specific networks.

B
Ballenknijper
Member
80
03-06-2018, 02:20 AM
#7
The rough sketch shows a virtual lab with three hypervisors running many virtual machines. For network purposes, I kept the design straightforward.
B
Ballenknijper
03-06-2018, 02:20 AM #7

The rough sketch shows a virtual lab with three hypervisors running many virtual machines. For network purposes, I kept the design straightforward.

K
KyuFX
Junior Member
33
03-12-2018, 10:43 AM
#8
I believe this approach would be effective. The switch should direct traffic through the appropriate ports, knowing that the destination is linked to 10.0.30.2. You'll only need to configure static routes or subnets on the local devices to connect to the relevant networks behind that IP. This way, it avoids needing to pass through the firewall.
K
KyuFX
03-12-2018, 10:43 AM #8

I believe this approach would be effective. The switch should direct traffic through the appropriate ports, knowing that the destination is linked to 10.0.30.2. You'll only need to configure static routes or subnets on the local devices to connect to the relevant networks behind that IP. This way, it avoids needing to pass through the firewall.

P
PedroO_
Senior Member
522
03-16-2018, 05:58 AM
#9
I considered sending static routes directly to clients that needed to reach networks through gateway 2. Running a Windows shop would be easier this way. I feel more comfortable when I’m not depending on GW1.
P
PedroO_
03-16-2018, 05:58 AM #9

I considered sending static routes directly to clients that needed to reach networks through gateway 2. Running a Windows shop would be easier this way. I feel more comfortable when I’m not depending on GW1.

J
james26665
Senior Member
537
03-16-2018, 11:13 AM
#10
Sure, I understand. Let me know how you'd like to proceed.
J
james26665
03-16-2018, 11:13 AM #10

Sure, I understand. Let me know how you'd like to proceed.