Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
- Cisco Community
- :
- About Crag Muer
Stats
Member since
03-19-2013
21
Posts
0
Helpful
0
Solutions
10-30-2018
09:58 PM
@paul driver Yep, each router acts as the gateway for the local subnet, routing traffic over a simple L2 metro Ethernet connection provided by a local ISP. The routers are Cisco 2951 ISRs and behind each router is a Catalyst 4507+E switch running a mix of 6L-E and 7E supervisors. All devices are minimally configured and besides the vLAN on the WAN interfaces, the only other service configured is EIGRP.
I've attached the configs for the routers, if you'd like to see the config for the switches just let me know.
Thanks again!
... View more
10-30-2018
02:46 AM
@Richard Burts First, I would really like to thank you for all of your help. I've tested your solution and it worked perfectly. Unfortunately, as I went to test this on the network I realized it isn't going to work. It's entirely my fault as I failed to realize there are more devices below the server IP address that would still need to be accessible.
The network 192.168.0.96/28 gives me enough IP addresses, but there are other hosts on the old network that would have addresses in this space. Even though I only need to move 192.168.0.100 I would still have 2 hosts (192.168.0.98 & 192.168.0.99) that would need to be accessible on the old network. No matter what combination of subnets I try and calculate, I can't come up with one that would include 192.168.0.100 but exclude 192.168.0.99 and 192.168.0.98.
At this point I'm certainly open to suggestions, but is there really anything else that can be done?
... View more
10-10-2018
06:27 PM
@Richard Burts Actually, that sounds perfect. I could fairly easily work around the issue of a small number of IP addresses not being accessible, that shouldn't be a problem. What would be the best way to proceed in this instance? I have a lab set up in GNS3 where I plan on testing this out and then moving to a physical test before making the actual change.
If at all possible, could you explain this in a little bit more detail? There's quite a few moving parts here and frankly, this is way over my head already LOL. Thanks again for your help!
... View more
10-09-2018
12:29 AM
@Richard Burts Unfortunately the original network (192.168.0.0) is not going away and users will still need to access services on both the old and new (192.168.10.0) networks. I also don't have the option of changing that network either as there's too many third party devices that I have no configuration control over residing on that network.
With that in mind, Is there any way to overcome the issue of devices in the 192.168.10.0 network accessing devices in the 192.168.0.0 network?
... View more
10-05-2018
10:40 PM
@Deepak kumar Any luck with that lab? By the way, what were you thinking in regards to using a loopback adapter on the server, I'd like to give that a shot.
... View more
10-03-2018
10:44 AM
@paul driver The server is being physically moved to a new building and there's no way to keep it at the old location.
When you say "external WAN access" are you referring to the internet? The server doesn't need to be accessible from the internet, but it does need to be reachable from other sites on the WAN. In this case, the WAN is a simple layer 2 metro Ethernet connection provided by a local ISP. I have full control over the equipment connected to the WAN, so if you think there's a solution there I can certainly give it a shot.
Thanks again for the help!
... View more
10-03-2018
03:24 AM
@Deepak kumar Yep, I have full control over the server but I'd much rather accomplish this using the network. However I'm certainly open to all suggestions and would consider giving anything a shot at this point. What did you have in mind?
After seeing my diagram, is this something that can be accomplished with one-to-one NAT?
... View more
10-02-2018
04:45 PM
@Deepak kumar Thanks for the suggestion, I'll look into testing a one-to-one NAT configuration. I've also posted a simplified network diagram of my current setup. If you'd like to see the router configs just let me know, though they're very basic with nothing more than a vLAN on the interfaces facing the WAN. Hope this clears things up a bit!
@paul driver The IP address of the server can't be changed due to a very old piece of software that's running on it. I've spoken to the vendor at some length regarding this issue, but as they no longer support or even sell this software anymore, there isn't anything that can be done. It's a very bad situation to be in and this is part of the process that would allow me to move away from using it. If it's possible to simply install another network card and have the server connected to both networks simultaneously, then I'd much rather do that. Is this something that can be accomplished over a WAN connection?
Thanks again for the help guys, it's MUCH appreciated. Here's the diagram of the network:
... View more
10-02-2018
04:27 PM
10-01-2018
08:42 PM
I have a server that I need to move to another network whose IP address I can't change. For example, the server is on the 192.168.0.0/24 network with an IP of 192.168.0.100 and I need to move it to the 192.168.10.0/24 network. Each network has a gateway IP address of 192.168.x.1 and the routing is handled by a pair of Cisco 2951 routers.
Looking over the example Cisco configs, I see one using NAT that would allow clients to access a moved server at its old IP address. This of course depends on you being able to change the IP address of the server, so I guess what I'm looking for is something in reverse.
Is this something that can be acomplished by NAT or is there another technology that can be used?
Thanks guys!
... View more
05-18-2015
02:22 PM
So I just applied the configuration but as soon as I applied the route-map to the interface I lost all communication with my other offices. I wasn't able to create the access-list specifically like mentioned above. It wouldn't take the second "any" argument, only the first. So the access-list looked like the following: "access-list 100 permit ip host 192.168.0.100 any" I'm not sure if the access-list was the cause of losing communication, but as soon as I issued the "ip policy route-map server" command it was like I lost all routing to my other offices. I've attached a text file with the router config as perhaps I did something wrong. Thanks a lot for your help with all of this, I really appreciate it!
... View more
05-18-2015
03:07 AM
Thank you very much for your reply, its already saved me a lot of time! I haven't yet had the chance to apply the configuration and test it, but will do so today. I'd just like to clarify my configuration as there was one unknown that I ran into. When creating the extended ACL to match the traffic, I wasn't aware that I had to enter a destination. I assumed by what you typed that the ACL would only contain one entry (192.168.0.100), but I was forced to enter in a destination. I also assume that when you said to apply the policy to the interface of the 2851 where the routes for 192.168.0.100 are received means the LAN side connection of the router. So my eventual configuration looked like this: access-list 100 permit ip host 192.168.0.100 host 192.168.0.7 route-map server permit 100 set ip next-hop 192.168.0.7 interface GigabitEthernet0/0 (192.168.0.1 255.255.255.0) ip policy route-map server
... View more
05-13-2015
03:23 PM
I have two internet connections, one primary and one secondary: The primary internet is static IP from a cable modem and the secondary internet is an MPLS connection. Each connection terminates at its own ASA 5550 on the same local subnet (192.168.0.0/24). I need one internet connection (the MPLS connection) to be reserved for a specific server (192.168.0.100) while the primary connection continues to serve as the default internet for the rest of the network. My current topology looks something like this: 192.168.0.100 ↕ 192.168.0.0/24 192.168.0.1 → Building #2 192.168.1.0/24 Building #1 ↔ Gateway ↔ Private IP ↔ → Building #3 192.168.3.0/24 4500e/SUP6L-E Cisco 2851 → Building #4 192.168.5.0/24 ↕ ↕ ASA#1 ASA#2 192.168.0.5 192.168.0.7 ↕ ↕ Cable MPLS The gateway for the 0 subnet is the 2851 router, and contains a default route to ASA#1 "route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.5", so all internet traffic for the 0 subnet goes through ASA#1. The problem is I need all internet traffic destined only for 192.168.0.100 to go through the secondary MPLS internet and ASA#2. I can't use ASA#2 as the default gateway on that server as I then lose connectivity to the other buildings because the 2851 gateway is no longer in the picture. I've tried a few things but all to no avail and I also can't just get rid of the cable internet at this time. I also have limited access to the server and can only edit basic network settings, like IP/mask and gateway info. I think I'm in over my head on this one and would love to hear from some more knowledgeable people. Any help is much appreciated.
... View more
Labels:
06-17-2013
02:00 AM
I am going live soon with a new failover configuration utilizing IP SLA monitoring. I have tested my configuration as best I could in GNS3 and was hoping someone could take a quick look at what I've done before I go live. Any help is greatly appreciated! Here is a brief overview: 3 remote locations connected over Verizon EVPL circuits Each office has it's own internet connection behind an ASA 5510 Each ASA has a VPN tunnel pointing to each other I verified that the other router configs mirror each other, save for the addressing Full router configs are attached to the post in case anyone wants to see them ip sla monitor 1 type echo protocol ipIcmpEcho 172.20.254.2 source-interface FastEthernet1/0.1741 (EVPL interface to Office #2) timeout 2000 frequency 5 ip sla monitor schedule 1 life forever start-time now ip sla monitor 2 type echo protocol ipIcmpEcho 172.20.254.3 source-interface FastEthernet1/0.1741 (EVPL interface to Office #3) timeout 2000 frequency 5 ip sla monitor schedule 2 life forever start-time now track 1 rtr 1 reachability track 2 rtr 2 reachability ip route 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 172.20.254.2 track 1 (route to office #2) ip route 192.168.5.0 255.255.255.0 172.20.254.3 track 2 (route to office #3) ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.2 20 (route to local ASA with backup VPN connections)
... View more
Labels:
06-17-2013
01:09 AM
Varinder Singh, Thank you very much for your reply, I will attach the ASA configs below. It would be great if you could look them over, thank you.
... View more
05-18-2015
So I just applied the configuration but as soon as I applied the
route-map to the interface I lost a...
05-18-2015
Thank you very much for your reply, its already saved me a lot of time!
I haven't yet had the chance...
06-17-2013
I am going live soon with a new failover configuration utilizing IP SLA
monitoring. I have tested my...
Public Statistics
| Date Registered | 03-19-2013 12:59 PM |
| Date Last Visited | 12-12-2018 02:20 AM |
| Total Messages Posted | 21 |
.jpg "Hall of Fame Master"){kind=icon}
.jpg "VIP Advisor"){kind=icon}
