On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Diego Cossetta <[email protected]> wrote:
> WHOOPS, I have to correct myself before we get too far off target. I meant > InBand Real IP gateway mode in that comment. No probs: we've already supposed it was just a typo :-) > No I do not think this is correct. I'm hoping someone will jump in and > confirm this for me, since it's been a few years since I've done a > VirtualGateway deployment. Uhm... ok: so maybe it could be this the cause of the probs... > See this cisco graphic for an overview > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/i/100001-200000/180001-190000/183001-184000/183453.jpg > When the CAS is a Virtual Gateway: [CUT] That's perfect: we've already done all that Cisco docs document and explain... ATM we've two environments which perfectly works: - a new WiFi infrastructure which works as smooth as oil (but which is not under NAC control) - a new IB-VGW NAC infrastructure which works smoothly as it should, if used with wired clients Actually the last problem seems to be integrating the WiFi infrastructure with the NAC one, creating an IB-VG NAC controlled wireless network (we can't find a detailed and complete example of such kind of architecture: Cisco docs are full of hi-level graphics and low details schemas, but it's quite hard finding a snippet of wireless access point and related switch configurations... :-((( ) If anyone could post an example (obviously with grayed out sensitive details) of such configs it'd be perfect... :-( I think we've just to figure out/understand what VLANs/networks use for APs and switch ports they're connected to... It seems to be so simple that Cisco specific docs are FULL of OOB and L3 examples (maybe because IB and L2 configs are too simple to be exampled in details ;-))) Anyway... tomorrow will be another day of analysis and tests: and let's hope to end the week in a good way, definitively solving these last probs. > It depends if you need a static route. (I know that is a vague answer, but > it's a vague question) Do you need static routes beyond a default route? If > not, no you don't. Ehehehehe... this vague question was due to the routing comment you made which was related to RealIP configs: being into a L2 adiacent environment (without any router in the middle), we shouldn't need any static route for routing traffic. Thx and bye, Diego
