06-29-2010 07:18 AM - edited 03-06-2019 11:48 AM
i want to know if is correct this configuration for FWSM routeing.
i have a router 7200 with a lot of nekwork. Default route to internet a FWSM inside a Catalyst 6509. Catalyst and Rotuer use EIGRP to change routing table.
i use on the FWSM this routing is correct?
route outside 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 X.X.X.X 1
route inside 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.1.X.X 1
Where X.X.X.X is the ip of ISP router and 10.1.X.X 1 is the ip of the router.
Is correct?
Do you think is better to configure a ip to the VLAN XYZ interface on the switch and change route inside 0 0 --> ip vlan interface switch.
VLAN XYZ is the same vlan configured in the inside interface of FWSM
If my description is hard to understand say me something.
Thanks a lot best regards.
Solved! Go to Solution.
06-29-2010 09:35 AM
Hello F.Mottini,
>> use on the FWSM this routing is correct?
route outside 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 X.X.X.X 1
route inside 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.1.X.X 1
Where X.X.X.X is the ip of ISP router and 10.1.X.X 1 is the ip of the router.
Is correct?
No, it isn't. You may use two default routes pointing to different IP next-hops out the SAME interface but not in this way.
for the inside you should be able to write some summary routes like
route inside 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 10.1.X.Y
eventually integrated with other static routes for other private IP addresses per RFC 1918 like
route inside 172.16.0.0 255.240.0.0 10.1.X.Y
route inside 192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.1X.Y
in this way you should be fine
Hope to help
Giuseppe
06-29-2010 09:35 AM
Hello F.Mottini,
>> use on the FWSM this routing is correct?
route outside 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 X.X.X.X 1
route inside 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.1.X.X 1
Where X.X.X.X is the ip of ISP router and 10.1.X.X 1 is the ip of the router.
Is correct?
No, it isn't. You may use two default routes pointing to different IP next-hops out the SAME interface but not in this way.
for the inside you should be able to write some summary routes like
route inside 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 10.1.X.Y
eventually integrated with other static routes for other private IP addresses per RFC 1918 like
route inside 172.16.0.0 255.240.0.0 10.1.X.Y
route inside 192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.1X.Y
in this way you should be fine
Hope to help
Giuseppe
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