the ip address and the gateway are not in the same subnet mask

hardware_failure

hardware_failure

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
1,370
A customer of mine had their router die (symantec vpn 100)

I am trying to setup a new router, but none that I have seem to work with the IP/Gateway config! it is as follows:

Available IP addresses: xxx.xxx.171.2 – xxx.xxx.171.52
Subnet Mask:255.255.255.192
Gateway: xx.xxx.222.1

The error I get is:
"the ip address and the gateway are not in the same subnet mask" which is.. true.

Typically I have seen an IP range and a gateway to be very close to each other.

In this setup, the IPs and the gateway do not have a single octet thats even close. The symantec vpn 100's work with this setup, but they are no longer for sale.

Any suggestions?
 
The gateway you configure on one device should be the IP address of the device at the other end of the VPN tunnel. Putting your default gateway on a network which is inaccessable is going to accomplish nothing.
 
The previous router was called a "vpn 100" (model) but there were no tunnels setup. VPN is not a factor. Thanks for the response tho.
 
Either way, you will need to specify a default gateway that is on the same network as whatever interface it's attached to -- logically, or physically. Unless you are willing to configure static routes, which would be dumb.

Is there a reason why you're not using a default gateway that's on the same network as one of this device's ethernet interfaces?
 
What's preventing you from putting it on the same subnet? What is xxx.xxx.171.1?

Although, given the fact that you're masking the first two octets, is this network defined in a public address space?

If so... I can see why you would not want to waste hosts. I know Cisco could allow this to happen by using proxy-ARP, which is probably what the older device used.

Essentially, the host must arp broadcast for the gateway, "who has xxx.xxx.222.1". It sends this broadcast out to all hosts in that subnet, which does not include a gateway outside of its subnet. That would defeat the purpose of a vlan. However, with proxy-ARP enabled and a route to the destination, the router will forward its own MAC address to the requesting host and routes "on behalf of" the desired host. It's kind of messy and I personally don't recommend it, but it would work.

Is there any setting for proxy-ARP for the new device?
 
All of the appliances used (both old and new) seem to be simple devices with web interfaces, and no advanced routing options.

The following:

Available IP addresses: xxx.xxx.171.2 – xxx.xxx.171.52 (50 static public IPs shared on the circuit)
Subnet Mask:255.255.255.192
Gateway: xx.xxx.222.1

Was provided by the ISP. It is for a T1 circuit that is almost 10 years old.

edit: Ive tried new linksys and netgear routers. Some of the old ones (still working, for other tenants on the same T1) are something called a maxsent, and 2 sonicwall tele2's.
 
Sounds like you might need a more powerful router.

It also depends on what routers you are trying now, as the Sonicwall originally ran for about $600.

I have a few Cisco sitting around.

2651XM
2621
2620XM

I also have a bunch of T1/E1 cards if you need them.(You might not as the Tele2 only had 2 Ethernet ports from what I read.)

Let me know if you are interested.
 
it sounds to me like you should have your external interface (circuit) set up as x.x.222.2/yy and then your internal interface would be x.x.171.1/26 allowing your hosts to use .2 - .62.

i think you need more than 1 interface configured on your router.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top