Important note about SSL VPN compatibility for 20.0 MR1 with EoL SFOS versions and UTM9 OS. Learn more in the release notes.

This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Setup XG Home with Eero DCHP

Hello, I've been looking for answer for a few days and the reading has been educational, but not a solution for my issue and I hope you can help move me toward a working firewall.

I am setting up XG Home on an old PC (i5-2400 if I recall correctly).  It has a build in NIC (Intel model) and I installed an Intel Pro/1000 dual port server adapter.  I want the firewall between the Arris cable modem and my Gateway Eero.  I want Eero to control DCHP so I get the full features of Eero.  Eero uses 192.168.7.1 as the default gateway address.  Cable One assign me an IP address from what seems to be any random server with an opening at the time (https://tools.tracemyip.org/search--isp/cable+one)

I can run the setup wizard via 172.16.16.16.4444 when I am connected by ethernet to Port 1 (original PC NIC) while cable modem is connected to Port 2 (NIC on the Intel Pro NIC) but from there I am lost.  I set the firewall in bridge mode hoping the gateway Eero will manage the IP connections as they change over time.  But the wizard sets the bridge address to whatever the cable modem IP is at the time and I can't change that in the wizard.  Then when the wizard is finished, I have no access to the firewall web maintenance app <bridge ip>:4444 . I tried with monitor and keyboard connected to my firewall pc to change the network to the default Eero gateway (192.168.7.1) but I still can't access 192.168.7.1:4444 after that. I even went so far as to try console > system appliance_access enable , then access the XG via https://192.168.7.1:4444 . But I still couldn't access the firewall maintenance app.

So I think its clear I'm not managing the the IPs right or using the right one to access the firewall.  Can you help me sort this out?

Much obliged.



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
  • Yep, those are all three things I was after so it is a success by those criteria.  I just don't know enough to know if what was accomplished was the "right" way or if the bridge that would maybe give per device rule making capability is really easy to accomplish from where I am at today or if I am just making a simpleton's mistake.  It sounds like I am not making such a mistake so I will move on from here to learn firewall rule making and the like.  Thanks for your help.