I have an eTec conexant router with 1 IP address and I am using NAT with
port forwarding quite happily. I now have need to do a few tests for a short
while which needs real internet addresses so I went and got a range from my
ISP. I want to keep my NAT and use the IP's I have for these tests.. ( I
dont have enough IP's for all machines tho) and I dont want to disturb the
current forwarding I have. Are there any guides for this kind of setup? Can
anyone help?

Thanks
Infant Newbie

In message <d1luuo$9st$1@news.freedom2surf.net>, Infant Newbie
<donot@spam.org> writes
want to keep NAT on one particular IP address but have pass through on
some others? If that _is_ what you need then you require another router.
The 1st one would have to be in pass through (bridge?) mode and the
second doing NAT for the IP address you have assigned it to.

--
Pete Devlin
[{//////news03//////at\\\\\secondrow/////co\\\\\uk}]
"Mind the oranges Marlon!"

Hi, thanks for your reply. I have a standard freedom to surf account with
one static IP on the router. I need to run a few tests so I purchased a few
IP addresses. My network (LAN) uses NAT (10.0.0.0) - I do not want to change
the existing machines on the lan as my Web MX records etc all point to
existing IP. All I want to do is apply these new IP addresses to the
equipment I want to test.

Hope this makes it clear?

"pete devlin" <spamtrap@secondrow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:CCeP1dEiNpPCFw6L@sukmabobby.com...

In message <d1tvoq$idi$1@news.freedom2surf.net>, Infant Newbie
<donot@spam.org> writes
Ish! It's too difficult and unusual IME to describe here. You need an
adsl router that does pass through for the range of IP addresses and a
router with an ethernet WAN socket to connect between the two routers.
You would then configure and connect the second router as yours is now.

--
Pete Devlin
[{//////news03//////at\\\\\secondrow/////co\\\\\uk}]
"Mind the oranges Marlon!"

In MsgID<b3Ent$EnpoQCFwSX@sukmabobby.com> within uk.telecom.broadband,
'pete devlin' wrote:

The (boringly standard) DLink router I was playing with earlier will allow
you to set its LAN IP to one from a statically assigned subnet, so AFAIK
it would then happily distribute to his test machines.

One of the first router's ports could then feed the WAN port of a second
router (the DLink would do this job too) to take care of the NATed LAN.

It means losing a public IP adress for the second router, but I don't see
any other problem. (??)

--
Dave Johnson - requiem@freeuk.com

Infant Newbie wrote:
If you mean mixed NAT/real then pick up an EN5861 off ebay.

Multiple 1:1 nat for real IPs can be done on a few modern routers like
the zyxel 660h and so on.

Or do you mean something else?

--
--
Linux - Performs in 3 days what other OSs can do in 30 seconds

Will I have to change my mx record on the internet? note I only have a
single ip at the moment. How will my current port forwarding work?

thanks in advance

"Dave J" <requiem@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:erh541lb21b4rcujpbq86q24tb3s4jg84r@4ax.com...

i have an en5861 here. VOIP is not very good with that router. I need to
test some IP phones.

"String" <String@BTInternet.com> wrote in message
news:4242d889$0$15985$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...

In MsgID<d1vif4$2hr$1@news.freedom2surf.net> within uk.telecom.broadband,
'Infant Newbie' wrote:

[..]


First of all, let's note that I could be wrong in what I said above. I
think it will work as simply as that, but there's been no confirmation nor
refutation from anyone else here.

If your current IP is part of your new IP block then there will be no need
to change the mx record, but you need to make sure there is a server
available at that IP.

The simplest way I can see would be to set the IP of the NATing router
(the second in the chain) to your old IP, everything *should* then work
exactly as it did before, as all requests to that IP will be routed to the
NAT device which will then do the port forwarding.

I'm not sure if the 2nd router's gateway address should be set to the IP
of the first router, or to the gateway address you're allocated by the
ISP. I think that either should work, but I may be getting too attached to
this shovel.

To other subscribers: I *think* I know what I'm talking about, but some
confirmation would be really nice (:

You're welcome. You'd be even more welcome if you could take to shortening
the quotes of previous messages and placing your reply beneath the points
you're replying to..

--
Dave Johnson - requiem@freeuk.com

In message <5j7841po211q2cmirf3d7apu92bek871d5@4ax.com>, Dave J
<requiem@freeuk.com> writes
Does a bridge mode router have an IP? If it is passing through requests
to several static IPs I can't see that it does. It is effectively all of
the allocated IPs isn't it? Isn't it??????
So, IMHO and without the means to test, I reckon that the ISP gateway is
the answer to your question. Or 42 of course.
--
Pete Devlin
[{//////news03//////at\\\\\secondrow/////co\\\\\uk}]
"Mind the oranges Marlon!"

"pete devlin" <spamtrap@secondrow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:YT3nUzmvJERCFwZY@sukmabobby.com...
What do you set the default route to when you are running in bridge mode?.

In message <1rqdnY_yoZWQ99nfRVnyuA@eclipse.net.uk>, David Wade
<g8mqw@yahoo.com> writes
Buggered if I know. Whatever it says in, ahem, TFM or whatever google
has turned up!
--
Pete Devlin
[{//////news03//////at\\\\\secondrow/////co\\\\\uk}]
"Mind the oranges Marlon!"

By the way it should be possible to mix NAT and fixed IP on the same
physical network. It does depend on your router. I used to have some clues
on how to do it, but I can't find them any were...

"pete devlin" <spamtrap@secondrow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BzmhMbqpaHRCFwIv@sukmabobby.com...

"David Wade" <g8mqw@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uYKdnZTRntq9PdnfRVnyjg@eclipse.net.uk...

:-)

In MsgID<YT3nUzmvJERCFwZY@sukmabobby.com> within uk.telecom.broadband,
'pete devlin' wrote:

A 'bridge mode' router isn't a router, it's a switch afaict, but the
little home toy I was looking at didn't seem to have a bridge mode so
because the OP was asking for quick easy and temporary solutions I figured
he could set his WAN network to his allocated block, and give an IP from
that block as his LAN IP. As I said, I *think* it would work, but I'm not
in a position to test.

General (irrelevant to this subject) question, to anyone with experience
of ISP allocated blocks, what is the normal default gateway that would be
allocated/used?

Well, the ISP gateway would certainly work, so it's the safest option no
matter what.

Hmm, 42.0.0.0 - reserved, maybe its reserved for default gateways


--
Dave Johnson - requiem@freeuk.com

In MsgID<uYKdnZTRntq9PdnfRVnyjg@eclipse.net.uk> within
uk.telecom.broadband, 'David Wade' wrote:

On a real router, with a couple of real switches behind it, that'd be easy
pie, but for an experimental setup I imagine the OP'd rather use what he
already has to hand.

Cost is the only thing that stopped me suggesting it, especially as my
only experience is with Cisco gear..

Another costing factor is that a 'real' router doesn't route by IP but by
network; you would also need at least two hubs, though better off with two
switches, to take care of that part.

A two router[1] setup is (I think) easier and cheaper for the purposes
described.

[1] It really bugs me having to refer to the general cheapo
mini-router/switch combinations as routers, they're not, if they were they
couldn't do the job on their own..


BTW (to Inf-Newb) I've just read your recent posting

If you have the necessary gear then post back, setting it up is much
easier than obtaining it I stand by my easy-bodge solution for now.


--
Dave Johnson - requiem@freeuk.com

"Dave J" <requiem@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:kkna41hmngg81ehl5porpl1q2cvqu39tg6@4ax.com...
The SpeedTouch 510 etc will route properley. Just remember they are
generally only two port devices and when you want to have NAT & Static you
really need a three port device, (Static, NAT & WAN). So you have to "cheat"
and put two subnets on one LAN segment..

Infant Newbie wrote:
How do you mean VOIP isnt very good? Any specifics? I got QoS working
for SIP and H323 nicely and without hastle. I didnt find it worse than
any other router.

In MsgID<N4WdnXPoMbU-MNjfRVnyvQ@eclipse.net.uk> within
uk.telecom.broadband, 'David Wade' wrote:

Sorry, I didn't mean the general ones won't route, I meant that they are
primarily switches, with a little two port router bolted on inside. This
confusion of terminology makes it harder to describe even simple setups
without saying things that wouldn't be true were they just routers.

For instance, "Set up your PCs to all reside on the same subnet and then
plug each one into a separate router port" - Wouldn't work for love nor
money if the 'router' mentioned was really (just) a router...

The confusion is ignorable until you get a query like the one presented by
the OP and you don't know the level of understanding possessed by the
person you're answering.

Then again, judging by his/her continued posting style and lack of polite
response, s/he probably falls into the bracket of not worth the
brainspace.

--
Dave Johnson - requiem@freeuk.com

"Dave J" <requiem@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:03di415e2menu0dv4mlh9equkr9nmatre6@4ax.com...
It does not help that the router specs are often just list a of RFCs with no
information of how they are implemented. I worked on one the other day which
described static port mappings as "virtual servers". They come under NAT
settings on my router.

I think that the problem here is that they confuse "router ports" with
"switch ports".

Many folks who post on here with questions have little knowledge of IP
routing, subnets etc. And if you don't know the ins and outs of their router
its a reall pig to provide snsible elp..

They just want an answer, and can't understand why we don't give it. Howver
I would have thought if you wanted to test multiple IP phones and they don't
understand NAT you could easily get a biger block of IPs from your ISP. Of
course you may have to write a justification (I did to eclipse for my block,
wich I got for "almost" the same reason, multiple Echolink, sort of IP phone
for HAMS ) and I guess that might also be difficult for some one who does
not ave a background in networking...

Dave.