Improve company productivity with a Business Account.Sign Up

x
  • Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 684
  • Last Modified:

Access-List & Policy Routing Problem

I am wanting to do some policy routing at my company and split internet traffic out two separate ISPs. I have an older internet circuit that I have about 10 public servers hosted on. This is what employees currently use for internet. I am wanting to route employees out bound internet traffic through a new internet provider but keep any traffic to and from my public servers synchronous. I've been able to do this from my gateway router using the route-map command and route all of the traffic from my public servers out the appropriate internet circuit. The problem that I am having is once I apply the route-map command to the Ethernet interface on my router any connections from my WAN are no longer able to access my public servers internally. Essentially, any requests from the WAN  to any servers in the ACL that the route-map uses are dropped at the interface that the route-map command applies too. Outside (internet) connections are accepted and obviously local LAN has no problems. The various sites in the WAN all connect to the same router that is doing the policy routing via serial interfaces. Here are the relevant parts of my config...

access-list 10 permit 10.0.2.24
access-list 10 permit 10.0.2.23
access-list 10 permit 10.0.2.22
access-list 10 permit 10.0.2.2
access-list 10 permit 10.0.2.1
access-list 10 permit 10.0.2.219
access-list 10 permit 10.0.2.217
access-list 10 permit 10.0.2.216
access-list 10 permit 10.0.2.215
access-list 10 permit 10.0.2.202
!
route-map public_servers permit 10
 match ip address 10
 set interface Ethernet0/0
 set ip next-hop 10.0.2.8
!
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.0.2.3


Here's the interface that is doing the policy routing.......

interface Ethernet0/0
 ip address 10.0.2.10 255.255.255.0
 no ip mroute-cache
 half-duplex
 no mop enabled
 ip policy route-map public_servers

Thanks in advance!
0
icarus004
Asked:
icarus004
  • 6
  • 5
1 Solution
 
JFrederick29Commented:
Change the route-map to set the default next hop instead so if the router doesn't have an explicit route to the destination (it will to the WAN sites), policy route the traffic.

route-map public_servers permit 10
 match ip address 10
no set interface Ethernet0/0
no set ip next-hop 10.0.2.8
set ip default next-hop 10.0.2.8
0
 
icarus004Author Commented:
Thanks. That seems to work great. This has been making me crazy. Just to expand on this some. I also have users that VPN into my network as well as public servers on other networks in the WAN. I've added them to the ACL to make sure that their back and forth route uses the same interface it came in on.

access-list 10 permit 10.0.3.22
access-list 10 permit 10.0.3.3
access-list 10 permit 10.0.4.24
access-list 10 permit 10.0.50.0 0.0.0.255

Problem I have is I can log in via VPN but am unable to ping anything once inside the network. That and my servers that I have made public in other networks on my WAN can not be connected to from the internet.
0
 
JFrederick29Commented:
Well, keep in mind, your WAN sites do not adhere to the policy unless you apply the route-map to the serial interfaces.  The VPN subnet doesn't need to be added to the policy either as the router will only route to the public IP of the VPN endpoint (not the internal/private IP).
0
The Lifecycle Approach to Managing Security Policy

Managing application connectivity and security policies can be achieved more effectively when following a framework that automates repeatable processes and ensures that the right activities are performed in the right order.

 
icarus004Author Commented:
So can I apply the same route-map policy to the serial interface for the appropriate WAN connection that the server is located or is it best to create a separate ACL with just the applicable IPs for that network and apply that?
0
 
JFrederick29Commented:
You could use the same since you will never match on the entries that aren't sourced from the WAN but I would create a policy that is only relevant to each interface for clarity sake.
0
 
icarus004Author Commented:
This worked perfectly. Thanks for the help!
0
 
icarus004Author Commented:
I just noticed something about VPN users. Once connected they are able to get to any of the the nodes that have an IP in one of the ACLs but they are unable to reach any internal IP that is not part of the ACL. This is the case with or without the acces-list I thought I needed for VPN users (access-list 10 permit 10.0.50.0 0.0.0.255).

Any help?
0
 
JFrederick29Commented:
Does the VPN terminate on the router?
0
 
icarus004Author Commented:
No. On a Pix. It's the IP in the "set ip default next-hop 10.0.2.8" policy.

Internet 2600 ---  Pix 515 ---  LAN --- WAN 3600

Want me to open up a new question for this? You've been really helpful.
0
 
JFrederick29Commented:
Sure, that would be great.
0
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

NEW Internet Security Report Now Available!

WatchGuard’s Threat Lab is a group of dedicated threat researchers committed to helping you stay ahead of the bad guys by providing in-depth analysis of the top security threats to your network.  Check out this quarters report on the threats that shook the industry in Q4 2017.

  • 6
  • 5
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now