| reply to viperm
Re: RDP problem behind MT routers You read it right, and I don't know what I am doing! lol
router1 I had NAT, and I also made the nat rule to dst-nat to the IP address of router2 at the port I am trying to get to.
In router 2 I had no nat at all, but I made a nat rule again, to dst-nat now to the device IP/port. I don't think that is the way to do it, seeing as both routers have routes to each other, I should just create the NAT rule in router1, directly to the device IP/port correct? |
|
|
|
 InssomniakThe GlitchPremium
join:2005-04-06
Cayuga, ON
kudos:1 | Yea there is no reason to have a NAT rule on a router that isnt doing NAT 
--
OptionsDSL Wireless Internet
»www.optionsdsl.ca |
|
| Yea figured that after I typed that out.
I must have something else off because I still can't connect to those devices. I stopped because half way through doing this I ended up dropping the internet connection for the users at the other end, so I reverted all my changes and stopped.
I'll have to go there and try it again.
I have separate dchp servers serving 2 subnets, when I create the route in router1 to the new subnet on router2, it kills the internet connection to those that are on the original subnet, on router2. |
|
bburley
join:2010-04-30
Cold Lake, AB | said by TheHox:when I create the route in router1 to the new subnet on router2, it kills the internet connection to those that are on the original subnet, on router2.
Your description is not entirely clear, but I don't think you need a route in router1 to the subnet on router2.
Since router2 is in routed mode and not using NAT, both router2 subnets should be visible on router1 LAN. The port forward is needed on router1 because of NAT. Your forward should point directly to the machine on the router2 subnet.
I am also assuming that your UBNT Client is connected to router2 on a port other than ether 1-9. Both UBNT devices should be in bridge mode. I wouldn't expect any problems there but I have had odd issues with implementations of "bridge" mode in some devices. |
|
| Originally there was only 1 dchp server on router2, .88.*, the internet for those users worked. There is also a router in the route list on router 1, of 192.168.88.0/24 to gateway 192.168.20.150 reachable ether3
With that setup, when I ping router2 at 192.168.20.150 I get timeouts, and when I ping router2 at 192.168.88.1, I get the weird response as shown above.
I've since then added the 2nd dchp server on router2 on ports 6-9.
So I added another route on router1, again 192.168.80.0/24 to gateway 192.168.20.150 reachable ether3
When I enable that, peoples internet connection drops that are on the .88.*
My current problems are that I can't seem to properly ping router2 from router1, and I can get users on the .80.* subnet to get internet access. I must be missing something but my brain is about fried and I need to take a step back and look it over again, or ask someone else to check it over. ;P |
|
