Support Forum
The Forums are a place to find answers on a range of Fortinet products from peers and product experts.
zp
New Contributor II

Forti VLANs with Cisco Switch

Hello, folks.

 

I'm fairly new to FortiGate and I'm in the process of configuring an 80F to replace a Cisco RV320 router. The RV320 has 4 sub-interfaces tagged with their respective VLANs:

- x.x.0.1 (default), x.x.10.1 (vlan10), x.x.20.1 (vlan 20), x.x.30.1 (vlan 30)

 

The Cisco core switch has virtual interfaces for each VLAN:

- x.x.0.2 (default), x.x.10.2 (vlan10), etc.

- Each VLAN interface points to a Windows server for a DHCP-helper address

- The DHCP scopes for each VLAN subnet points to the respective switch virtual interface (x.x.x.2) for its gateway

- The core switch has a single default route pointing to x.x.0.1 on the RV320

- The core switch is connected to the RV320 by single trunk port that carries all VLANs

 

As I'm setting up the 80F I thought it would be nice for each VLAN to have a dedicated physical port on the FortiGate to avoid having congestion on a single shared trunk port:

- I removed 3 ports from "internal" and configured them as standard ports (not VLAN) each with their x.x.x.1 address

- I plan to dedicate 1 core switch port for each VLAN and connect them to the respective 80F ports 1:1

- I plan to change the DHCP scopes for each subnet to point to the x.x.x.1 address of the 80F ports (the reason for using x.x.x.2 previously was to keep inter-VLAN traffic on the switch and off the trunk to the RV320)

 

I've done something similar for a Guest network on a different Forti device but in that instance the VLAN was carried through the network directly to the (untagged) FortiGate port which handed out DHCP itself. In that case it worked just fine.

 

Am I going about this the right way or is there a better/easier way? Can I setup a DHCP-helper address on the physical Forti interfaces? Is there benefit to configuring the Forti ports as VLAN interfaces?

 

Edit:

What about using a 4-port aggregate on the Forti to a 4-port Etherchannel on the Cisco and keeping the switch's default route to x.x.0.1?

 

Thanks!

zp

1 Solution
lobstercreed
Valued Contributor

Hey Zach,

 

zp wrote:

Am I going about this the right way or is there a better/easier way? Can I setup a DHCP-helper address on the physical Forti interfaces? Is there benefit to configuring the Forti ports as VLAN interfaces?

Yes, yes, and no.  This gives you the greatest flexibility in building firewall rules and controlling (or at least logging) inter-VLAN traffic.  You absolutely can have the FortiGate do the ip-helper and you can do it from the GUI interface config by selecting Advanced when you turn on the DHCP server and changing the Mode from "server" to "relay".

 

 

zp wrote:

Edit:

What about using a 4-port aggregate on the Forti to a 4-port Etherchannel on the Cisco and keeping the switch's default route to x.x.0.1?

 

I'm not sure what the switch's default route has to do with whether you use LACP or not, but I would imagine you could use the agg and do VLANs on that interface.  Honestly, not something I've ever had reason to do but if bandwidth or VLAN expansion is a concern, maybe you want to give it a try and let us know.  :)

 

- Daniel

View solution in original post

13 REPLIES 13
sw2090
Honored Contributor

On a FGT a vlan is threated as a virtual interface too. So you can tie it to a port or switch or trunk.

You cannot configure a physical interface as vlan interface on a FGT.

 

Then you can create policies or static routes using the vlan interface as source or destination interface.

However only traffic that leaves the cisco will hit the FGT.

 

And yes a virtual vlan interface can have rather the same options as a physical one. So you could set up secondary IP(s) or dhcp server or dhcp relay on it if needed.

-- 

"It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes." - Douglas Adams

-- "It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes." - Douglas Adams
lobstercreed
Valued Contributor

I believe you've got it, Zach!  That should work as far as I can tell from what we've discussed.

zp
New Contributor II

Thank you everyone, I appreciate it!

zp
New Contributor II

The change-over went great! One thing that I expected to possibly be an issue was having the one sub-interface tagged as "VLAN 1". I changed the VLAN ID for that (management) VLAN and adjusted some internal addressing. Worked out just fine and will end up being more secure anyway by preventing VLAN hopping.

 

Thanks again everyone!

Top Kudoed Authors