Public IP Hand-off

Forum|Forum|2 years ago
July 11, 2024
3 replies
1695 views

Hello,

I need to provide Managed Wan Connectivity + Wireless Failover to a customer who is managing their own network, their Edge device is a Meraki MX firewall. They need Public static IP addresses on the MX.

I use ISPs to provide the last mile connectivity which, in most cases is Off-Net Braodband Cable or FTTP (this is not dedicated fibre).

I would like to use FG40Fs to terminate the WAN connectivy (so I can manage it ), then hand-off the Public IP to the MX over a switchport. Then setup GRE tunnels back to my core network so I can route and advertise the Public IPs. One Primary tunnel and one Failover tunnel.

I've been told that this has many disadvantages: A) the GRE tunnel overhead, B) the Cable (DOCSIS) variable latency & potential packet loss, and C) and tunneling already tunneled and encrypted traffic. I've also been told that, despite the specs in its datasheet, a FG40F wil not be able to deliver more than 100-200Mbps throughput because the GRE tunnels and DOCSIS nature.

Could you please provide some advise on how to best implement this (IP-VPN or SD-WAN solutions are not posible alternatives)? Can this be done with a FG? How should I size the FG? What will be the setup/Configuration to be use? Any advise will be much appreacited.

FortiGate

Anthony_E

Staff

Hello,

Thank you for using the Community Forum. I will seek to get you an answer or help. We will reply to this thread with an update as soon as possible.

Thanks,

Best Regards

Toshi_Esumi

SuperUser

I thought you originally showed a diagram. The network scheme you're thinking probably wouldn't work well once the MX is in the picture and that's why nobody seems to be willing to comment on your post.

Either let the MX side to provide failover/redundancy with multiple ISPs and MRs or replacing the MX with the FGT, which might manage Forti-something inside their network.

We had many prospects in the past asking similar things. We mostly turn them down by telling above. Even if you could implement something that might work, it would cost you a lot for troubleshooting down on the road by taking lots of resources then the unsatisfied customer would eventually leave.

Toshi

JPScolarAuthor

Visitor III

Hi Toshi.

Thank you for your reply. I'm including the net Diagram to illustrate the concept.

Toshi_Esumi

SuperUser

Cisco 1000 Series ISR is NOT Meraki MX. Not sure how much FW feature it covers while Cisco has Firepower FW product line. It's probably not appropriate to discuss at this community. And now there is no FG40F in place as you mentioned in your original post either.

I think it's beyond this community.

Toshi

Sign up

Login with SSO

Login to the community

Login with SSO