You can also leave the server untouched and add a route on your (SIP/RTP) default-gateway (192.168.1.6): ip route 172.16.30.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.1.
All your SIP/RTP traffic will flow as usuall. All the Web/Gui traffic will flow via 192.168.1.6 to 192.168.1.1 If you also send ICMP-redirect on the D-GW (cisco's do it by default) and accept them on the server (small security risk, don't know defaults) then the Web/Gui traffic will flow directly to 192.168.1.1 after the first packet. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094702.shtml This solution has the advantage that the SipX box can be replaced/rebuild/upgraded etc without having to think about the routing. Paul "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Why are there 2 Gateways in the Network of your sipx? Which nets are they > > connected to? > > I have several gateways on the network, each for it's own traffic to > prevent packets flowing on to network segments they don't belong on. > It's also a security measure of course. > > > If there is only one specific IP Network connected to the 192.168.1.1 then > > you can add a specific route only for this network and the default gateway > > for all other networks is still the 192.168.1.6. > > So, you mean for example, > route add -net 172.16.30.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.1 > This would allow traffic destined back to 192.168.1.1 to flow back > out to that gateway without affecting the rest of the traffic? > > > This should not cause any effects as long as you have only unique > > networks/IP-addresses involved. > > In this case, I have a sipx server at 192.168.1.x and it's gateway > is 192.168.1.6 for SIP/RTP connections only. > I have web users coming from 172.16.30.x who need access to the > dashboard on sipx so when they connect, the packets don't flow back > to them since the servers gateway is 192.168.1.1. > > If there isn't a problem adding a second route so that web (8443) > connections can flow back to the 172.16.30.x network without messing > up SIP/RTP traffic, then that seems to be the solution. > > This is what I am looking to confirm so that I don't do something lame. > > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > sipx-users mailing list > [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
_______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
