Here's the thing.
A PIX does have to know routes back to an inside host. If the host is on a different subnet than its own interface, then it must forward to another router (in your case 192.168.1.1, but I don't see that ip as an interface on your 2600). Even though the PIX itself can talk to all those other subnets inside, it can't be used as the gateway for routing between subnets for hosts to talk to each other.
It appears that you have a "router-on-a-stick" with multiple subnets all on the same physical interface. This facilitates the routing between subnets, but I see some glaring issues:
Assuming the PIX inside interface is 192.168.1.1, the default route appears to point to the PIX, as it should
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1
However, the PIX is routing everything for those other subnets back to itself
>inside 192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.1 1 OTHER static
>inside 192.168.3.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.1 1 OTHER static
>inside 192.168.4.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.1 1 OTHER static
These routes on the PIX should all point to 192.168.1.2, the IP address assigned to the router interface, i.e.
route inside 192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.2
route inside 192.168.3.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.2
route inside 192.168.4.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.2
Main Topics
Browse All Topics





by: JharperPosted on 2004-07-30 at 09:33:22ID: 11678959
In order for the PIX to do NAT translation between subnets it has to have the ability to route. True, Cisco does say that it is not a router and it is not. It only does very basic routing to provide proper firewall services. When looking at a small office, the reason you need a router is provide termination for your Internet circuit. When looking at a larger office, a router gives you extra benefits like routing protocols and the ability to configure redundant circuits. Does that answer your question?
Jharper