I have a tunneling setup working in the lab using a pair of Cisco routers directly connected via Ethernet crossover on their WAN ports to simulate the internet. The problem is this is not realistic enough because the WANs have to be on the same subnet with this very simplified setup (afaik).
To add context, the customer wants to add a VPN in addition to an existing T1 without disturbing what is already there and there is no interest in giving internet access to the remote site, just another way to connect to the main office, via VPN in addition to T1.
So again, I have everything tested and working but the problem is I am quite sure it will not work "IRL" because of the default gateways below and the fact that in real life the WAN IPs of course are not on the same subnet.
So the question really has two parts:
- For future reference what is the easiest and cheapest thing to put "in the middle" so that I could use completely different IP addresses on the two WAN connections and have a much better lab, and
- Do you believe the third commented routes shown in each set below, or rather something similar, will be sufficient to make it work once on the customer site with the real IPs and the real ISP gateway IPs?
Essential details of both configs:
!-- MAIN OFFICE !-- - WAN meant for VPN only interface FastEthernet0/1 ip address 18.104.22.168 255.255.255.248 speed auto crypto map MY_MAP !-- - LAN interface FastEthernet0/0 ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0 speed auto !-- - VPN - not shown for brevity !-- - Routes - .8 is a completely different gateway device. ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.8 ip route 192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.2.1 !-- - If remote were 22.214.171.124 and main !-- office ISP gw were 126.96.36.199, !-- will this be sufficient? !ip route 188.8.131.52 255.255.255.248 184.108.40.206 !------------------------------------- !-- REMOTE OFFICE !-- - WAN meant for VPN only interface FastEthernet0/1 ip address 220.127.116.11 255.255.255.248 speed auto crypto map MY_MAP !-- - VPN - not shown for brevity !-- - LAN interface FastEthernet0/0 ip address 192.168.2.1 255.255.255.0 speed auto !-- - Routes ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 ip route 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.1 !-- - If 18.104.22.168 were ISP gw address at remote, will this be sufficient? !ip route 22.214.171.124 255.255.255.255 126.96.36.199