• Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 367
  • Last Modified:

VPN Concentrator 3005 Placement

My current Network is as follows:-

Router (X.X.X.129)  >  PIX 515e (X.X.X.131)  >  LAN (\24)

At present I am using the Cisco VPN Software Client 4.8 to connect to the PIX using IP address X.X.X.131, which then enables users to connect to any server /  host on the network (ports 500 and 4500 have an ACL to forward for NAT transparency)

FTP connections point to the IP address X.X.X.135 (using static route and ACL to pass port 21 to FTP server on

SMTP connection point to the IP Address X.X.X.133 (using static route and ACL to pass port 25 to Barracuda Spam Firewall on

WWW / HTTPS connections point to the IP address X.X.X.132 (using static route and ACL to pass ports 80/443 to Exchange Server

Now throw into the mix a donation of 3005 VPN Concentrator and a few 3002 Clients (for remote hosts).

My problem is where do I place the 3005?  

Ultimately, I want to remove the VPN tunneling from the PIX and have the 3005 handle all this and the pix just block or forward traffic.  However, do I place the 3005 between the router and the pix, or do I assign another public IP, say X.X.X.136 to the DMZ port of the PIX and connect the 3005 there.

Any insight / logic would be appreciated.

1 Solution
I've seen it done both ways.  I've personally implemented more VPN 3005 concentrators placed right beside the firewall rather than behind it in the DMZ. This doesn't mean put it between the router and the PIX, but right beside the PIX where the public interface of the VPN 3005 would be on the same subnet as the PIX public interface, and the VPN 3005 private interface would be on the same subnet as the PIX private interface.  This makes for easier implementation since you won't have to modify any firewall rules to get it working.

The VPN 3005 is a hardened appliance like the firewall, but will only accept connections from a VPN client...in other words, you cannot configure it to forward traffic inbound based on ACL's or anything like that.  It is strictly meant for VPN traffic.  So I don't see a problem putting giving it a public address on it's public interface.
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

Join & Write a Comment

Featured Post

We Need Your Input!

WatchGuard is currently running a beta program for our new macOS Host Sensor for our Threat Detection and Response service. We're looking for more macOS users to help provide insight and feedback to help us make the product even better. Please sign up for our beta program today!

Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now