NAT routing with failover on 1811

[steve.goldman]

You'll have to excuse me, for I'm quite new at this. Our company just purchased an 1811 integrated services router that has two wan ports. I would like to configure the router to support one local LAN subnet with NAT and failover on the two WAN ports. We have SDSL and a T1 for failover. How difficult would this be and where can I look to find out how to configure it? Is it even possible to do via SDM or must it be done via command line?

[steve.goldman]

Okay, now I see what you're saying. I may have left these lines out of the sample I attached to my previous post. These lines setup the static NAT for both lines.

===============================

ip nat inside source route-map FAST-0 interface FastEthernet0 overload

ip nat inside source route-map FAST-1 interface FastEthernet1 overload

ip nat inside source static 10.0.0.4 Y.Y.Y.Y route-map SERVER-F1

ip nat inside source static 10.0.0.11 Y.Y.Y.Y route-map SERVER-F1

ip nat inside source static 10.0.0.4 X.X.X.X route-map SERVER-F0

ip nat inside source static 10.0.0.11 X.X.X.X route-map SERVER-F0

!

!

route-map FAST-1 permit 10

match ip address 150

match interface FastEthernet1

!

route-map FAST-0 permit 10

match ip address 150

match interface FastEthernet0

!

route-map SERVER-F0 permit 10

match ip address 160

match interface FastEthernet0

!

route-map SERVER-F1 permit 10

match ip address 160

match interface FastEthernet1

===============================

[brett.adams]

Thanks Steve, that better clarifies what I mean. The routemaps and nat statements should get him going. Also this gives me an idea for a problem I have elsewhere.

Thanks again.

[insccisco]

Steve hi.

Can you also provide the access lists that relate?

On this case, I remember one of the cisco guys mentioning something about that access-list had to be played around in order to get this done.

[steve.goldman]

My access lists are pretty long and specific to my setup. There really isn't much playing that has to be done. Just make sure that each service is represented on the access lists. There should be two separate lists. One that provides access on the FE0 and the other for FE1 so the entries will be the same but with different IP addresses for external.

Aside from that, the access lists are pretty normal.