sasdaniels
asked on
Changing internal IP address of ISA firewall/proxy
Just a general question this - at the moment the default gateway of our LAN is the firewall (which like all the servers has some static routes pointing to a cisco router to get to remote offices)
We are upgrading the network and the default gate way will be a cisco core and we will change the internal IP address of the ISA/Proxy - otherwise nothing much else will change, we are keeping the same subnet. Can anyone think of any consequences for this eg will I have to change firewall rules, anything on Exchange server 2003 etc
I can handle proxy address and port via group policy - anything else I need to address anyone ?
We are upgrading the network and the default gate way will be a cisco core and we will change the internal IP address of the ISA/Proxy - otherwise nothing much else will change, we are keeping the same subnet. Can anyone think of any consequences for this eg will I have to change firewall rules, anything on Exchange server 2003 etc
I can handle proxy address and port via group policy - anything else I need to address anyone ?
Between the "core" and the ISA you will a have a new subnet. So that is basically all that is going to change.
On ISA you do as instructed by keith. (Change IP, administer internal netwok....)
One VERY important thing. Add a STATIC PERMANENT route to your internal IP segment on the ISA server. This is a must. (use command promt: route add x.x.x.x mask y.y.y.y routerip -permanent)
Other thant this small thing it is preety straight forward.
Btw, do not remove the firewall client, no need for that.
On ISA you do as instructed by keith. (Change IP, administer internal netwok....)
One VERY important thing. Add a STATIC PERMANENT route to your internal IP segment on the ISA server. This is a must. (use command promt: route add x.x.x.x mask y.y.y.y routerip -permanent)
Other thant this small thing it is preety straight forward.
Btw, do not remove the firewall client, no need for that.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
None taken,
The design I immagined the author of the question is undertaking, is to upgrade the core switch and implment it as a layer 3 gateway for just the users. In such a design the ISA would stil be the actual Internet gateway, acting as a firewall and proxy. The ISA would be positioned "behind" the router (Ly3 switch).
ISA would in such scenario have two NICs...
Damijan
NOT and ISA MVP, just an user since it was Proxy II :)
The design I immagined the author of the question is undertaking, is to upgrade the core switch and implment it as a layer 3 gateway for just the users. In such a design the ISA would stil be the actual Internet gateway, acting as a firewall and proxy. The ISA would be positioned "behind" the router (Ly3 switch).
ISA would in such scenario have two NICs...
Damijan
NOT and ISA MVP, just an user since it was Proxy II :)
Understood - hopefuilly the asker will clarify. I had understood the comment 'on the same subnet' to mean on the same subnet as the 'internal interface' rather than on the external interface ie ISA was going to be kust a proxy server now and would use the core as an alternative route out. - if your understanding is the correct one then I apologise now. lol - don't you apologise - wouldn't be the first time that I've got it wrong :)
Regards
keith
Regards
keith
ASKER
Hi Guys
Thanks guys for those tips: From what the Cisco guys said (I await final design write up) there would be a subnet between core layer 3 switch(s) and the WAN router
We have a Juniper front end firewall that hosts a DMZ (a Citrix Secure Gateway sits on there to authenticate Citrix Web Access), the ISA is backend firewall and proxy - eg I have a rule on there for Outlook Mobile Access. Then we have a WAN router (a LAN extension really) and the four remote offices are on different subnets - they are all citrix desktop so effectively sit behind ISA because the citrix servers are on same subnet as ISA. So I can add all these networks as you suggest.
Good point about people using http/https it is possible to bypass this at moment (although I have locked out settings in IE via group policy that point to proxy)
Thanks again for the tips
Thanks guys for those tips: From what the Cisco guys said (I await final design write up) there would be a subnet between core layer 3 switch(s) and the WAN router
We have a Juniper front end firewall that hosts a DMZ (a Citrix Secure Gateway sits on there to authenticate Citrix Web Access), the ISA is backend firewall and proxy - eg I have a rule on there for Outlook Mobile Access. Then we have a WAN router (a LAN extension really) and the four remote offices are on different subnets - they are all citrix desktop so effectively sit behind ISA because the citrix servers are on same subnet as ISA. So I can add all these networks as you suggest.
Good point about people using http/https it is possible to bypass this at moment (although I have locked out settings in IE via group policy that point to proxy)
Thanks again for the tips
:) - welcome
Keith
Keith
Any update?
2. So ISA is proxy only, not firewall as well? - make sure you have removed (assuming you had used before) the ISA firewall client.
3. If you are introducing any new subnets that would appear on ISA's horizon, make sure these are added to the local LAT table in the ISA gui.
4. make sure you have updated the ISA2004 to SP3 anyway - adds some neat troubleshooting functionality.
5. If the Cisco core is the new default gateway, consider adding an ACl to the Cisco boxes to only allow http/https access from ther ISA ip address to avoid people bypassing the proxy - maybe add servers to the group of these need direct access also.
Just a few starter points.
Keith