howto define private IP range on USG interface

Fred_77 · May 2022

Hi NoE
my screenshoot was about route policy.
(Obviously also security policies are needed).

Try to go
Configuration > Objects > Address
and add 2 obj. as Interface Subnet: one for LAN1 and one for BR1
then
Configuration > Network > Routing > Policy Route

and add at least a couple of rules to define routes

Source: LAN1subnet > Dest: BR1 subnet > next hop "Auto"
...
LAN1subnet > Other Zones/subnets if you have another > next hop "Auto"
...
...
Source: LAN1subnet > Dest: any > next hop "Interface" > "wan1"

Fred

NoE · May 2022

Thanks @Fred_77

I will try that, obviously something is missing there ;-)

NoE

Zyxel_James · May 2022

Hello @NoE,

According to your request, I think a WAN bridge could achieve it.

You may refer to this KB to set up the WAN bridge.

https://kb.zyxel.com/KB/searchArticle!gwsViewDetail.action?articleOid=014133&lang=EN

Moreover, I saw you mention the main WAN stops after the WAN bridge is set up. Could you provide some screenshots of your setting including the routing policy?

Thank you.

James

zyman2008 · May 2022

NoE said:
192.168.94.X must use its GW only - i.e. for the Internet it should use ISP2 only. This network uses some services reachable via GW 192.168.94.1 which are legally strictly defined and it is not desirable to send related packets via public Internet - i.e. not over main ISP1. This is the situation for 192.168.94.X network as of now, so I want to keep it by - very simply said :
having the GW 192.168.94.1 connected into ge12
having 192.168.94.X switch connected into ge11
The background - our organization used 192.168.94.X only. However we have been tasked to get another ISP for all the Internet communication except few PCs etc. which would be kept inside 192.168.94.x network.
However, some of the PC shares and Synology data storage from 192.168.94.X network (i.e in our premises) should be accessible to other subnets defined on USG which use ISP1 only.

Hi @NoE ,
Then, what I told is matching this case exactly.

NoE · May 2022

Hi @Zyxel_James

thank you for the KB article. I think I have understood the point, however - one question:

The port 3 for LAN1 has IP 192.168.1.1 all the time.

But - in my case (WAN GW 192.168.94.1, IP range for our special PCs:192.168.94.(2-254 )) - the switch with those WAN2 addresses (192.168.94.0/24) will be plugged into USG port 3 in the KB example while GW 192.168.94.1 will be plugged into port 1 in your example.

So what intrigues me is the static IP defined there - 192.168.1.1 - is it correct?

Regarding routing policy - I did not define any, I used the default USG FLEX 700 setup in this case, I have setup just the Zones and Secure Policies for them. Perhaps this was the point - having no routes defined the USG operated correctly only on the bridge proposed by @Fred_77 and for all the rest - i.e. for the main ISP connectivity, the USG did not know what to do.....

Cheers,

NoE

NoE · May 2022

zyman2008 said:

NoE said:
192.168.94.X must use its GW only - i.e. for the Internet it should use ISP2 only. This network uses some services reachable via GW 192.168.94.1 which are legally strictly defined and it is not desirable to send related packets via public Internet - i.e. not over main ISP1. This is the situation for 192.168.94.X network as of now, so I want to keep it by - very simply said :
having the GW 192.168.94.1 connected into ge12
having 192.168.94.X switch connected into ge11
The background - our organization used 192.168.94.X only. However we have been tasked to get another ISP for all the Internet communication except few PCs etc. which would be kept inside 192.168.94.x network.
However, some of the PC shares and Synology data storage from 192.168.94.X network (i.e in our premises) should be accessible to other subnets defined on USG which use ISP1 only.
Hi @NoE ,
Then, what I told is matching this case exactly.

I have another downtime agreed next Monday, I will try your proposal and of course....wil let you know.

Thanks a lot for your inputs and assistance

Cheers,

NoE

NoE · May 2022

Hi @zyman2008

I have just followed your setup proposal, but what I needed to add was the bridge according KB article proposed by @Fred_77 and mentioned by @Zyxel_James - as the clients within 192.168.94.x network are IP-address-fixed, I could not used DHCP, so that is why the bridge.

Now everything goes very nice

Here is my config

Related Interfaces: