I tried to ping 192.167.x.x, and other IP addresses, the pix nats them, (by turning on the debug icmp trace, it says "translation"), but when pinging 192.168.x.x, just says sending request and no reply.
Thanks for your reply, just would like someone to confirm my doubts. Thanks again.
Hello, I have two pubilc /24 IP address ranges that are supplied to us via our ISP. Both are assigned to the fast ethernet port as primary and secondary IP addresses. How would I get all of the traffic that is intended for the IP range that is the secondary IP range to pass through seemlessly through our PIX firewall and access the intended destination?
You change the routing on the router, something like
ip route 2.2.2.0 255.255.255.0 1.1.1.2
You would not need to make any changes on the PIX to support this routing in itself. On the PIX, you would just use the normal static commands and access-list entries (in the access-list assigned to the outside interface via the 'access-group' command.)
You should NOT try to give the PIX outside interface an IP address in the second IP range -- you won't be able to do it with that setup.
1) you only use a single IP address range for the PIX outside interface
2) you can static IPs in either address range to the outside interface: the PIX is able to handle receiving packets for an indefinite number of different outside address ranges even if they have nothing to do with the address range assigned to the outside interface
3) you can static different outside IPs to the same inside IP as long as the ports differ
4) you can static different outside IP ranges to the same inside IP range
5) you can static different outside IP ranges to different inside IP ranges, as long as you have an inside router (192.168.13.253 in this example) that has an address in the same IP range as the inside interface. Hosts that lived in that second internal address range would need to have their default gateway set to a router that knew to pass their outgoing external-bound packets to the single PIX inside IP.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.