Cisco 2951: setting up and changing a static route.

[roncro]

Hello,

I have two access points, but they are connected to a computer:

AP1 192.168.66.6 (the ipaddr of the computer interface is 192.168.66.1)

AP2 192.168.67.6 (the ipaddr of the computer interface is 192.168.67.1)

The computer's ip "itself" is 192.168.1.112

I used to have it setup with another machine, that worked, but replaced stuff and forgot how I set up the routes on a Cisco 2951

I have to change replace one route on the router I think, and complete another one

here is  the relevant part that "show ip route" shows.

%<

192.168.66.0/24 is variably subnetted, 3 subnets, 2 masks
S 192.168.66.0/25 [1/0] via 192.168.1.110
C 192.168.66.128/25 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1.66
L 192.168.66.131/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1.66
192.168.67.0/24 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks
C 192.168.67.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1.67
L 192.168.67.131/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1.67

%<

How do I change/replace the 192.168.1.110 address, and complete it for the 192.168.67.0 traffic?

thanks,

Ron

[roncro]

right,  but that is not what I wanted to know.  Let's "roll back" everything, and assume I have nothing setup.

I want to start using a new subnet,  192.168.67.0/24  and I want all traffic to addresses in the 192.168.67.0 network being routed  'through' 192.168.1.112;   How do I do that 'best' ?

Ron

[balaji.bandi · Accepted solution]

As we discussed -  if you like /24 need to route via 112, you need to have route point 112 and back - example as below

ip route  192.168.67.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.112 (Hope Router knows how to reach 192.168.1.112 IP address)

for the return traffic, you need same route back towards router 

is this make sense?

[roncro]

I tried that before, but didn't work.  Tried it again, threw everything  of that subnet away,  and now it work,  IP wise that is.

I can ping everything in the LAN  and in the WAN,  DNS isn't working though, but I'll post that separately.

thanks,

Ron