Avatar of bgraves
bgraves
Flag for United States of America asked on

Router bloicks WAN IP for Cisco VLAN

Cisco RV345 router in a static IP mode.
ISP gives me IPs of   x.y.z.232 /29 with gateway x.y.z.233
I set RV345 WAN as x.y.z.234 /29

Now I try to define a globally known address using a VLAN to connect a server:
  so maybe a server at x.y.z.236 with an interface on a port asdsigned to VLAN1.
  VLAN 1: IP x.y.z.235 /29  and the RV345 gives a red box and won't allow it.
  because I am not so smart, I try /30 and it also errors
  Tried other IPs, x.y.z.236 through x.y.z.238 and they all fail
  Any IP OUTSIDE the router's WAN range x.y.z.232 /29 is allowed.

I want the server's IP to be one of the ISP assigned values, but the RV345 seems to prevent it.
What am I missing here?
Networking

Avatar of undefined
Last Comment
masnrock

8/22/2022 - Mon
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Soulja

Log in or sign up to see answer
Become an EE member today7-DAY FREE TRIAL
Members can start a 7-Day Free trial then enjoy unlimited access to the platform
Sign up - Free for 7 days
or
Learn why we charge membership fees
We get it - no one likes a content blocker. Take one extra minute and find out why we block content.
Not exactly the question you had in mind?
Sign up for an EE membership and get your own personalized solution. With an EE membership, you can ask unlimited troubleshooting, research, or opinion questions.
ask a question
John

I want the server's IP to be one of the ISP assigned values, but the RV345 seems to prevent it.

That is normal (I have a Cisco RV325).  The outside WAN is for your external IP and the inside WAN is a non-routable IP range like 192.168.x.x
bgraves

ASKER
So, Soulja,
Would I use a static NAT to map WAN x.y.z.236 /29 to x.y.z.236 /29 or would it have to be internal IP like 192.168.x.x?
The 192.168.x.x is a problem since the targeted device is a Sonicwall, it needs to know what incoming WAN IP was used to address it.
Soulja

You would nat one of your public ip's to an internal one for that server you are trying to set up.
Experts Exchange has (a) saved my job multiple times, (b) saved me hours, days, and even weeks of work, and often (c) makes me look like a superhero! This place is MAGIC!
Walt Forbes
bgraves

ASKER
Multiple WAN IPs go to same server. The server inspects the WAN IP address to determine where/what to do.
So, let me check my understanding here, I would NAT each global WAN to a separate 192.168.x.x type IP and then setup the target server with something like 192.168.x.y /29 so it can handle them all?
Soulja

What do you mean the server inspects the wan ip? What type of server is this? I am referring to one to one nat's. One public ip to one internal Ip.
bgraves

ASKER
The router feeds a Sonicwall firewall. The Sonicwall does the mapping of multiple WAN addresses to internal servers.
I do understand the the RV345 could do this but we are trying to mirror an old vendor supplied system with a Cisco 1841 feeding the Sonicwall and the old system did this forwarding just fine.
Get an unlimited membership to EE for less than $4 a week.
Unlimited question asking, solutions, articles and more.
masnrock

Static NAT is the only way you could do it with that device, which is what Soulja already told you. Sonicwalls are far more flexible in this sense, that you can have any public IP in your block translate to any local address behind it that you like.

Can the Sonicwall have multiple public IP addresses translate to the same private IP? Yes. How would a session behave when doing that, would actually be a good question. Never had a reason to do it.
Can the RV345? Highly doubtful. Given the way it's design is for static NAT, you probably won't be able to do it.

The router feeds a Sonicwall firewall. The Sonicwall does the mapping of multiple WAN addresses to internal servers.
I do understand the the RV345 could do this but we are trying to mirror an old vendor supplied system with a Cisco 1841 feeding the Sonicwall and the old system did this forwarding just fine.
Are you trying to have the RV345 feed a Sonicwall? If the answer to that is yes, then that's a waste of hardware. You could just have the Sonicwall and be done with it.