The Wolverine inside is on the same subnet as the PIX inside. Don't know that the PIX should be doing any filtering before routing.
Main Topics
Browse All TopicsI have a PIX that refuses to route inside.
Here's the setup.
Main Site(SiteA) has
1 PIX(172.16.2.1), default gateway for all clients, Site2Site VPN with a small site (SiteB)
1 Wolverine Firewall(172.16.6.254), serves as VPN server and has Site2Site VPN with other site(SiteC)
SiteB has one PIX(192.168.1.1), default gateway, VPN to siteA
SiteC has one Wolverine(192.168.0.1), default Gateways, VPN to SiteA
Everything between SiteA and SiteB is just fine.
I added a route on the pix
route 192.168.0.0/24 inside 172.16.6.254
So that normally, when the PIX receives a packet for the SiteC net, it should send it to the Wolverine.
But It doesn't!
If I ping, I get a timeout.
In the PIX logs, I see a "11001 No route from 172.16.1.68 to 192.168.0.10"
On the pix, If I show debug icmp, I get nothing special. No indication.
If I manually add a route on the client, I get a reply.
BUT, if I log on to the PIX (ssh) and ping 192.168.0.10. I get a reply!!!!
So it seems the PIX is routing it's own packets, but refuses to route the client's packets.
What am I missing???
.
This Question has been solved and asker verified All Experts Exchange premium technology solutions are available to subscription members.
Experts Exchange has been collecting answers to technology questions since 1996…3 million and counting! If you have a question, chances are we already have your answer.
If you can't find the exact answer you're looking for, ask our exclusive community of 50,000 experts. You’ll get a personalized answer from a trusted professional.
Thousands of free tech tips, tricks, how-to’s and tutorials are available in our peer reviewed articles section. See for yourself how smart our experts are, no login required.
Access the answers to your technology questions today.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Members of the expert community talk about why the experience at Experts Exchange is different than what you will find anywhere else.

Try it out and discover for yourself.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Join the community of experts here and help other tech pros by answering question in your area of expertise. You can earn FREE access to all Experts Exchange's premium features and resources.
>So that normally, when the PIX receives a packet for the SiteC net, it should send it to the Wolverine. But It doesn't!
That's correct and expected behavior for the PIX. The PIX is not a router and although it must be able to route to other subnets, for packets passing through it or originating from it, it will not "bounce" packets that originate on a PC that points to the PIX as the gateway, but the destination of that packet should be re-directed to another router on the inside.
One solution would be a "router on a stick" if you've got any old Cisco router laying around. Put it on the network with appropriate route statements on it and point the clients to it as their default gateway..
It IS a pretty good firewall.
But for example.
I have it on 2 sites and I set up a site2site VPN between the 2 PIX.
When a client uses the Cisco VPN client to log on remotely, they can only see the site at witch they are loged on, the PIX will not let them see the remote site...you need a Cisco VPN concentrator for that.
I want to use a Radius server to authenticate remote VPN users. But I have to have one at both sites because the PIX refuses to authenticate against a Radius accross the site2site VPN. You need a Cisco VPN Concentrator for that.
I have 2 VPN servers but the PIX refuses to bounce packets to the other gateway...you need a Cisco Router for that!
Checkpoint, Netscreen, Wolverine...they all do that. But the PIX...nope, you gotta buy some other thing.
It's just annoying.
Agree that it is annoying at times. Just remember that Cisco's philosophy is to
make world-class routers that are the best at what they do - route packets.
make world-class firewall that is the best at what they do - block packets
make world-class VPN endpoint devices with a temendous amount of flexibilty and capabilities
Yes, they've added advanced features to routers to do both, but it is still a router
Yes, they've added advanced features to PIX to support VPN's, but only the minimum capabilities
Cisco will probably not make any one product to compete in the "I want all my eggs in one basket" market by adding multilayer routing functions to the PIX (then it won't be "best in class" any more) like advanced routing functions or content filtering or AV inline filtering. There is only so much that you can do with it and maintain the strict government ratings, testing, and standards that the PIX is subjected to in order to keep its government ratings. Many other manufacturers are very happy and content to not go through the extensive testing or expense to get those government ratings and therefore are free to do just about anything they want with their product.
Just my $0.02 ...
Happy happy, joy joy....
Business Accounts
Answer for Membership
by: harbor235Posted on 2005-02-07 at 11:02:50ID: 13247414
Is the PIX filtering traffic outbound to the Wolverine or is the Wolverine filtering traffic inbound?
harbor235