Hi Folks,
I'm in the process of replacing a PIX 501 /w an ASA 5505 (basic license). My ISP routes two different blocks of IPs through to my one ISP port:
x.x.x.128/29
x.x.x.176/29
On the old PIX, I could only use the first of these blocks (got them to set up the 2nd block in anticipation of using the ASA 5505 w/ its DMZ optiion). With the PIX I have the inside network assigned to x.x.x.128/29 and the inside interface itself assigned the IP x.x.x.129; the other usable public IP's in the block (130-134) assigned to NICs on boxes connected right to the inside interface.
Now, w/ the ASA 5505, the corresponding setup would be to put the x.x.x.128/29 IPs on gear attached to the inside VLAN (the inside interface itself gets the x.x.x.129 IP just as it had on the PIX). And, by the same token, I now can set up the x.x.x.176/29 IPs on gear attached to the DMZ VLAN (with the DMZ interface taking the x.x.x.177 IP).
So, my question is this: Is there any practical difference between doing that (as far as traffic between the boxes using the public IPs and the Internet) vs. setting up the inside & DMZ VLANs as (for instance) 192.168.1.0/24 and the DMZ vlan as 192.168.2.0/24 along with appropriate static NAT rules to translate the public IP to the corresponding inside IP? (I understand that the DMZ VLAN IPs cannot initiate traffic to the inside VLAN IPs; that's fine.)
My thought is there should not be any difference between explicit assignment of the public IPs to the VLANs vs. using private IPs on the VLANs w/ NAT, right? (I recognize that if the use of private IPs w/ NAT will work, that I'd have a lot more available private IPs directly on the inside and DMZ vlans--that'd be nice, but it's not absolutely required.) My ISP advised me to do the setup the way I did on the PIX initially. I assume they were just trying to save me steps/complications. Or, am I mistaken and there is some reason to have the public subnets assigned directly to the interfaces/VLANs?
Thanks!
John Craig
Alpha-G Consulting, LLC
I'm in the process of replacing a PIX 501 /w an ASA 5505 (basic license). My ISP routes two different blocks of IPs through to my one ISP port:
x.x.x.128/29
x.x.x.176/29
On the old PIX, I could only use the first of these blocks (got them to set up the 2nd block in anticipation of using the ASA 5505 w/ its DMZ optiion). With the PIX I have the inside network assigned to x.x.x.128/29 and the inside interface itself assigned the IP x.x.x.129; the other usable public IP's in the block (130-134) assigned to NICs on boxes connected right to the inside interface.
Now, w/ the ASA 5505, the corresponding setup would be to put the x.x.x.128/29 IPs on gear attached to the inside VLAN (the inside interface itself gets the x.x.x.129 IP just as it had on the PIX). And, by the same token, I now can set up the x.x.x.176/29 IPs on gear attached to the DMZ VLAN (with the DMZ interface taking the x.x.x.177 IP).
So, my question is this: Is there any practical difference between doing that (as far as traffic between the boxes using the public IPs and the Internet) vs. setting up the inside & DMZ VLANs as (for instance) 192.168.1.0/24 and the DMZ vlan as 192.168.2.0/24 along with appropriate static NAT rules to translate the public IP to the corresponding inside IP? (I understand that the DMZ VLAN IPs cannot initiate traffic to the inside VLAN IPs; that's fine.)
My thought is there should not be any difference between explicit assignment of the public IPs to the VLANs vs. using private IPs on the VLANs w/ NAT, right? (I recognize that if the use of private IPs w/ NAT will work, that I'd have a lot more available private IPs directly on the inside and DMZ vlans--that'd be nice, but it's not absolutely required.) My ISP advised me to do the setup the way I did on the PIX initially. I assume they were just trying to save me steps/complications. Or, am I mistaken and there is some reason to have the public subnets assigned directly to the interfaces/VLANs?
Thanks!
John Craig
Alpha-G Consulting, LLC