No internet with SG300 and RV320

[dpj010001]

Hello,

Kind of a double issue.

I currently have a SG300 in L3 mode and a RV320 router. My original thought was to have the switch in L2 mode and have the RV320 handle the routing, DHCP, and DNS. I was advised by some colleagues that I should have the switch in L3 mode handling the routing and use the RV320 as just the internet gateway with firewall/NAT. The problem I have now is, according to the admin guide, the RV320 should be in gateway mode since it will be the device actually connected to the internet.. Problem is that pinging outside to the internet doesn't work, DNS relay seems to work, but nothing else. How are the packets supposed to get out if the router doesn't have a ".1" address. Also, one-to-one NAT and PAT is not enabled, Is NAT working at all?

I have the VLANs set up in the RV320 and the routes seem to be there. What am I doing wrong? I am about ready to give up and go back to L2 mode on the switch.

Also, I had to give the DHCP responsibility back to the SG300 as the RV320 handed a default gateway of itself ".60" and not the ".1" of the SG300. What's the deal with that? I want to use the RV320 as my DHCP/DNS box but that seems to be easier said than done.

SG300:

VLAN104

VLAN105

192.168.4.1

192.169.5.1

RV320:

VLAN104

VLAN105

192.168.5.60

192.168.4.60

[phibertron]

If you haven't already, you need to add a default gateway on the sg300 to the rv320

for example 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.4.60 or 192.168.5.60

having dhcp running on the switch and the router in your setup looks like a bad idea

usually one would use one or the other

[dpj010001]

DHCP is only running on the SG300, I would rather it run on the RV320 where DNS is running. How do I get the RV320's DHCP server to hand out the SG300's gateway (.1) interface instead of its own (.60)?

[phibertron · Accepted solution]

I don't think its possible to do that, but maybe cisco can chime in if it is possible or not

[dpj010001]

Thanks, That route was it. Is it normal for traceroutes to hop to 192.168.1.1 on the way out of the RV320?

[phibertron]

Based on the hardware and os running on the router

I'd say that it is normal / expected behavior

Meaning that the lan ports are not separate routing interfaces and are connected to an internal switch

which is connected to a single eth port on the cpu (which is normal for consumer and prosumer hardware)

If I remember correctly vlan 1 is somehow hardware assigned to that eth port on the cpu

[phibertron]

I over analyzed that question

Simply put, that is the IP assigned to NAT

[dpj010001]

Thanks phiberton, makes sense. One more thing.

Could you please have a look at the attached files? I'm not sure if I have the VLANs set up properly between the SG300 and the RV320. I'm new to VLANs and I'm a little confused about how the router (in gateway mode) should talk to the switch. I don't believe I need trunking enabled on the RV320 switch ports because each VLAN has its own cable going to the RV320, correct?

Also, I have another SG300 on the way that I will link up to my current SG300. All ports should be untagged unless the ports are trunks to the new switch, correct? I previously had all ports tagged which I believe is incorrect.

Thanks.

This url from Mehdi got me thinking I'm might have this screwed up even though its happening to work.

https://supportforums.cisco.com/discussion/12360051/multiple-vlans-multiple-gateways#comment-10093466

[phibertron]

Here is an example layout of what I would do in your scenario

note:

in the below diagram sg300 port 10 is connected to any lan port on the rv320

Here is the port assignment on the RV320

Note:

you will need to add routes for .104 and .105 to the switch as shown in the diagram above

Here is the port assignment on the SG300

note:

I didn't use your config for ports assignment, mine is just an example

also you will need to add a default route to the router as shown in the diagram above

In regards to use general, access or trunk mode on a port

if only single physical devices are going to be connected to them,

then it wont matter since everything is going to be untagged,

and we are only using one vlan per port

Here are the SG300 DHCP pool configurations

[dpj010001]

Excellent information. Thank you!

[phibertron]

Your Welcome

[Mehdi Boukraa]

Hi , 

Please check this post : 

https://supportforums.cisco.com/discussion/12360051/multiple-vlans-multiple-gateways#comment-10093466

Please let me know if you have any question, if still doesn't work please share the config file from the Switch (clear text) , and screenshot from RV320 udner Port management --> Vlan membership 

Please rate this post or mark it as answered to help other Cisco Customers

Greetings

Mehdi