NETWORK PRESENCE ABOUT SERVICES PRODUCTS TRAINING CONTACT US SEARCH SUPPORT
 


Search
display results
words begin  exact words  any words part 

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [FW-1] Ping question



Title: FW: router question
    Can I assume that everyone on the 172.30.1.x network has a gateway of the Cisco 2500 router on there network and that the 172.17.x.x network has a gateway of the firewall? If so it sounds like a NAT problem where you need to keep the packets going from 172.30.1.x to 172.17.x.x original.
                                        -JRM
-----Original Message-----
From: Mailing list for discussion of Firewall-1 [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Guibord, David
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 11:39 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [FW-1] Ping question

Hi all,
 
              Internet  router                       
                    |
                    |
       -------- Firewall ------ DMZ
       |                |
       |                |
       |                |
172.18.x.x      |----------  172.17.x.x------- 172.30.1.x
 
All networks have a direct connection to the firewall, except for the 172.30.1.x network which is offsite and connected via two cisco 2500 series routers.  The 172.30.1.x network can ping all firewall interfaces, the dmz, and the 172.18.x.x network without a problem.  When it tries to ping the 172.17.x.x network the requests time out.  I'm assuming that this is happening because the request goes directly to the pc or server in question, but the reply has to go back through the firewall which is the default gateway for the 172.17.x.x network and the firewall does not like to get requests when it doesn't see the reply in the first place and drops it.  Users have no problems connecting for files and such, just pinging which we use for troubleshooting connectivity.  As a work-around I've created a static route on a server in the 172.17.x.x network that will respond directly to the 172.30.1.x network for troubleshooting.  Is there another way around this via making a change to the firewall?  Oh, we are running 4.1sp2 on an nt4 sp6 box.
 
Thanks for any help,
 

Dave Guibord
MCSE, MCP+I, CCNA
pmh caramanning inc.

[email protected]

 
 
 


 
----------------------------------

ABOUT SERVICES PRODUCTS TRAINING CONTACT US SEARCH SUPPORT SITE MAP LEGAL
   All contents © 2004 Network Presence, LLC. All rights reserved.