Juniper ssg140 using 2 untrust interfaces for different networks

i have 2 juniper ssg140's in a failover cluster config. 1 untrust interface, several VIPs and MIPs configured. 2 trust interfaces but both route through same untrust. Here's a sample layout:
Untrust Intreface 12.12.12.12
Trust1 interface 192.168.1.x
Trust2 interface 192.168.100.x
Remote offices have site to site route based vpn to main office. Remote office nets are 192.168.2.x, .3.x, .4.x, .5.x, etc.
We now have a client that unfortuantely has the same net as one of our remote offices, like 192.168.4.x. We have to create a site-site vpn with this client. My idea is to use a second Untrust interface at 12.12.12.13 with lan behind it of 172.16.100.x for example. The client will only need access to 3 or 4 services on 1 server which we can place in the 172.x.x.x lan.
any ideas if this will even work or if the ssg140 supports this config?
thx

LVL 1
dguillenAsked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

BlazCommented:
Did you think to add an alias 172.x.x.x to the server or move it from your LAN completely?

Are your remote offices (especially the conflicting one) accessing this server? If yes then adding a 172.x.x.x alias won't solve your problems. The server will want to send a packet to the IP 192.168.4.5 and it won't know whether to your client or remote office.

I believe you could leave everything as it is and just add NAT to the client's VPN (maybe also to the conflicting office VPN) - change their addresses to 192.168.199.x (a non conflicting network).
0
dguillenAuthor Commented:
the server at 172.x.x.x will only need to be accessed by the new clients and by a server at 192.168.1.x (local trust int). The existing remote conflicting office will not need to access this server. I wanted to avoid changing my existing remote office lan's ip.
0
BlazCommented:
> I wanted to avoid changing my existing remote office lan's ip.

I suggested that you NAT your new client - you don't have to change their LAN IPs, just NAT their connection. You can leave the existing remote office intact.
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
Powerful Yet Easy-to-Use Network Monitoring

Identify excessive bandwidth utilization or unexpected application traffic with SolarWinds Bandwidth Analyzer Pack.

Qlemo"Batchelor", Developer and EE Topic AdvisorCommented:
I agree, best is to just NAT the client's IP addresses in the VPN policy. For restricting of traffic in policies you will need to apply to the NATted addresses, of course.
0
dguillenAuthor Commented:
i did end up using NAT using the juniper overlapping subnet instructions.
thanks
0
dguillenAuthor Commented:
i'll award qlemo some points as well for stating the policy info, i overlooked it at first
0
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Hardware Firewalls

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.