static route

I have the following problem:

Server (10.10.10.20) needs to access Server (10.10.30.70) thru
Firewall (10.10.10.40). The firewall rule has been defined to allow
traffic from source to target. All the masks are 255.255.255.0. How
can I add static routes to the source (10.10.10.20) so that it can
communicate with target (10.10.30.70) thru the firewall?

"Tom1" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:6a2e204d-bf1c-4c34-9327-(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have the following problem:
>
> Server (10.10.10.20) needs to access Server (10.10.30.70) thru
> Firewall (10.10.10.40). The firewall rule has been defined to allow
> traffic from source to target. All the masks are 255.255.255.0. How
> can I add static routes to the source (10.10.10.20) so that it can
> communicate with target (10.10.30.70) thru the firewall?

You don't.
It doesn't work that way.

10.10.10.20 communicates to 10.10.30.70 via the NAT Actions on the Firewall.

10.10.30.70 communication with and is only ever aware of the Firewall,...it
never does,...and never will,...directly see what is behind the firewall.

--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

"Tom1" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:6a2e204d-bf1c-4c34-9327-(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have the following problem:
>
> Server (10.10.10.20) needs to access Server (10.10.30.70) thru
> Firewall (10.10.10.40). The firewall rule has been defined to allow
> traffic from source to target. All the masks are 255.255.255.0. How
> can I add static routes to the source (10.10.10.20) so that it can
> communicate with target (10.10.30.70) thru the firewall?

Since (I assume) these are both private networks and you won't be NATing you
could just setup a route for the 10.10.30.0 subnet on the 10.10.10.20 server
and set 10.10.10.40 as the gateway for that route. Or set your default
gateway machine to route packets destined for that network to 10.10.10.40.
I assume 10.10.10.40 knows how to get to 10.10.30.x.

On Sep 5, 10:57*am, "Jim H" <j...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> "Tom1" <usernetu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6a2e204d-bf1c-4c34-9327-(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> >I have the following problem:
>
> > Server (10.10.10.20) needs to access Server (10.10.30.70) thru
> > Firewall (10.10.10.40). The firewall rule has been defined to allow
> > traffic from source to target. All the masks are 255.255.255.0. How
> > can I add static routes to the source (10.10.10.20) so that it can
> > communicate with target (10.10.30.70) thru the firewall?
>
> Since (I assume) these are both private networks and you won't be NATing you
> could just setup a route for the 10.10.30.0 subnet on the 10.10.10.20 server
> and set 10.10.10.40 as the gateway for that route. *Or set your default
> gateway machine to route packets destined for that network to 10.10.10.40..
> I assume 10.10.10.40 knows how to get to 10.10.30.x.

Thanks Jim - your advice did the trick. My mistake was that I was
putting the gateway to 10.10.10.20 instead

Route -p add 10.10.30.0 mask 255.255.255.0 10.10.10.40

"Tom1" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:83e67ccd-07d6-45a8-bd7e-(E-Mail Removed)...
On Sep 5, 10:57 am, "Jim H" <j...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> > Server (10.10.10.20) needs to access Server (10.10.30.70) thru
> > Firewall (10.10.10.40). The firewall rule has been defined to allow
> > traffic from source to target. All the masks are 255.255.255.0. How
> > can I add static routes to the source (10.10.10.20) so that it can
> > communicate with target (10.10.30.70) thru the firewall?
>
> Since (I assume) these are both private networks and you won't be NATing
> you
> could just setup a route for the 10.10.30.0 subnet on the 10.10.10.20
> server
> and set 10.10.10.40 as the gateway for that route. Or set your default
> gateway machine to route packets destined for that network to 10.10.10.40.
> I assume 10.10.10.40 knows how to get to 10.10.30.x.

> Thanks Jim - your advice did the trick. My mistake was that I was
> putting the gateway to 10.10.10.20 instead

> Route -p add 10.10.30.0 mask 255.255.255.0 10.10.10.40

So it was LAN Router and not a Firewall?
Sorry, I just base my replies off of the way the question is worded :-(

--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------