Wondering if you someone could help me find out if this is possible. I currently have two V130’s one on ether1 and the other one on ether2. I have left one V130 on its default subnet 192.168.2.1/24 and set and address on ether1 of 192.168.2.254/24, this allows me to connect to the V130 from my LAN, on top of that I have a netmap rule that maps 192.168.30.253 that maps to 192.168.2.1, this allows my monitoring software to access the modem through my tunnels. On the second modem I have to change its IP to 192.168.3.1/24 and set and IP on ehter2 to 192.168.3.254/24, I then have a netmap rule that maps 192.168.30.252 to 192.168.3.1. It all works but I want to start pushing this setup out to a multiple sites and don’t want to have to keep making changes to the modems to keep it all up and running. What I want to achieve is a netmap rule that maps 192.168.30.253 to 192.168.2.1 on ether1 and 192.168.30.252 to 192.168.2.1 on ether2. Does anyone know if this is even possible?? Appreciate any help with this!
So, what’s the question?
IMHO a much more cleaner approach would be running the drayteks in bridge mode, letting the mikrotik grab the public IP, then monitor the mikrotik (which guess you’re doing already).
This will simplify failover and provide better performance, eliminating double NAT, (which will avoid issues with certain protocols) and also make life easier for those drayteks: they are keeping a connection state table for all the connections going through (they’re natting), while they are intended for home or small soho usage…
Thanks for the reply, they are already running in bridged mode, and I am not doubling NAT’ing, the only reason I am using the 192.168.2.1 addresses still is so I can telnet onto them and pull stats from them, thanks.
So these are only management IPs? ok…
In that case to avoid natting, you should set proper routes on the drayteks, so that they can be accessed from any part of your network. that’s all…
Don’t know your specifics, but apart from good practice looks to me that adding the proper gateway towards your LAN subnets on the draytek routing table would be simpler and require less initial and further management work than “spaguettizing” your network with netmaps.
I’m not saying that natting per se is bad practice, but using nat to “patch” for incomplete routing on devices inside your network when you’re in control of all devices, definitely is.