12-21-2015 08:43 PM
Greetings,
I used to have a SMB RV042 router that I replaced with the RV320 after it died and because I need the two WANs to be GbE for our new Internet service of 150 Mbps. Now we have 2 links, first is the 150 Mbps service and the other is a 1.5 Mbps that we use for the App and Mail servers.
After the installation and configuration of the unit along with weeks of frustration, I have stumbled with two big problems that I would like to share to see if someone can help me out:
1) WAN1 has the Static IP 96.xx.xx.225 and WAN2 has the static IP 74.xx.xx.82. I have used ONE-ON-ONE-NAT to assign most of the WAN2 IPs to the servers we have and things work fine, however, I am having big problems with WAN1. If I try to access the unit remotely using https://96.xx.xx.225:8080 it won't go anywhere, but if I use https://74.xx.xx.82:8080 from WAN2 it works! Same if I try to map any internal IP with any IP of the WAN1 block 96.xx.xx.224/255.255.255.240. It simply won't work but for WAN2 everything works just fine. I tried playing with the firewall rules to no avail. Let's say that I tell the router that I want the WAN1's IP 96.xx.xx.226 for the internal IP 192.168.1.5. It won't work if I want to access it from the internet but if I do the same thing using the WAN2's IP 74.xx.xx.89 it will perfectly work. I don't know if this is an issue related to the fact that we are using 2 internet links and we are mapping different internal IPs with different WAN1 and WAN2 IPs . The router should work because it asks for the WAN interface you want for the one-one NAT thing. Also, is set to Load Balance mode, not Smart Link. Any ideas of what I can do to solve this?
Now 2) I have mapped my internal mail and web servers IPs with the WAN2's static IPs using one-on-one NAT. Everything works like a charm if you try to send and receive e-mails from outside of the office but internally, the connection times out. I tried to ping the external IPs from my own computer and it works but if I actually want to retrieve or send mail it won't let me. The curious thing is... if I go to the web browser and I place the external IPs mapped to the internals it will bring the Router's web interface instead of the web site associated with that IP!! It seems that instead of masquerading the internal IPs with the external, the router is trying to do some kind of loop-back or self-assigned traffic to itself. NO matter what I have tried to do, I cannot connect from my internal network to our mail servers because the router is not handling the forwarding/masquerading traffic correctly. Has anyone had this problem too? Is there someone who has fixed this?
Thank you all in advance,
Paul D. Fabre
12-23-2015 04:46 PM
The way I handle mail servers behind a router is by host name. My email server is setup out in the internet with a registered DNS name. When I am outside my network I use my registered DNS name. In the firewall I have port 25 setup to port forward from my outside IP address to my inside IP address of the email server. In the router I setup a local static name record to point to the real inside local IP address. In the Cisco RV320 there is a local DNS database under DHCP where you can enter your email server host name and the local private IP address. Now you should be able to access your email server by host name either inside or outside your network. If you do a DNS lookup on the outside of your network it will resolve to the outside registered IP address. If you do a DNS lookup on the inside of your network it will resolve to the internal local IP address. The host name works either way as it will resolve to the correct IP address no matter whether inside or outside the network.
12-23-2015 06:19 PM
Hello,
Thanks for the answer. That is exactly what I have done. For my LAN requests the mail hosts resolve internal IPs through our Windows Server 2012 DNS server and my colleagues can perfectly send and receive e-mail while the REAL IPs for the same hosts are handled and shown to the open internet by the nameservers of our ISP.
The RV-042 did not have that behavior and we did not need to define internal DNS entries for this. I was looking forward to avoid this procedure but I see now that what I did is the right thing.
Thank you again and well, I hope that my other issue can be resolved.
Best Regards,
Paul
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide