Problem w/ physical layout FB700

[shaman22]

internet router:
WAN ip 64.54.52.x
LAN ip:10.1.1.x

router performing NAT

In a routed config would the ip of the external interface on the FB700 be a public ip if the FB700 is behind the router and if so would the LAN ip on the router be changed to a public ip to be on the same network as the external interface of the FB700.

Any help would be appreciated.

 

[ashleym]

It depends on your ISP, but yes, generally speaking the external interface of your FB and the interface of your router facing the external interface of the FB would have externally routeable IP's and belong to the same IP block.

AM

 

[shaman22]

would i also be able to configure it like this or would this be a routing table nightmare?
Internet router
WAN: 64.54.x.x
LAN: 192.1.10.2

FB
external 192.1.10.1
internal 10.x.x.x

or would it be easier putting the 2 interfaces on the router and the external interface on the FB on the same public IP block.
It will mostly be used for muvpn

 

[rhardy99]

Like Ashleym said, "external interface of the FB would have externally routeable IP's and belong to the same IP block".
My setup is like so:
Cisco Router IP: 88.20.30.169 (not real IP)
WG External Port: 88.20.30.170 (not real IP)
WG Trusted Port: 192.168.1.200/24

When you first setup the WG you can choose if it will be in "Drop in mode" or "Routed". Routed is like mine & Drop in would be if you have several public IP addresses. Looks like you are trying to make your WG on a private IP instead of giving it a public IP. What type of internet connection do you have? T1? Frac-T? DSL or Cable? Other?

 

[shaman22]

we are connected to a T. I am going to configure it with the public ip's on the external interface. so let me ask you, i should put all my static NAT's on the FB and remove them from my Cisco router?

 

[rhardy99]

Yes, I believe you are correct for ROUTED cfg you would have the WG do the NAT. With DROP-IN cfg the traffic is routed through the WG with no NAT. You might be able to do NAT on the Router still but I think you would have to create routes for the internal IPs...not sure..that is a little beyond me. Hope this helps.

 

[shaman22]

So, with that logic if you are designed with one subnet with no routing internally, would you just get rid of the cisco access router and have the WG as your external interface. I mean what would be the point of the router if you are not routing to different subnets internally.

 

[rhardy99]

My understanding is you need your Cisco to ROUTE info to your ISP and act as the GATEWAY for your WG.?!?!?!

 

[shaman22]

that would be only if you are using the routers mac address for something, otherwise you can assign the same ip to the external interface of the wg. I am nhot sure it will work but i will try this weekend and post my results.