we have private IP address on WAN port, no connection through Router?

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by GS, Oct 6, 2005.

  1. GS

    GS Guest

    We got leased line (RJ45 cable directly to home), we have 2 PC's,
    connected through Router, the WAM IP address is: 192.168.25.234 and LAN
    side it is using 192.168.1 subnet (192.168.1.2 and 192.168.1.3), once
    enter all WAN port details, th esetup wizard not finishing, and we are
    not getting internet through Router. If we connect the cable directly
    to PC and configure that WAN IP address (192.168.25.234), it works, but
    one PC at a time, I tried both PC's, it works individually, if we
    connect through Router, nope. Any suggestions, thanks in advance.
     
    GS, Oct 6, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. GS

    Tom Stiller Guest

    Judging from the WAN IP address, 192.168.25.234, your line is already
    connected to a NAT router. Normally, additional IP addresses would be
    available from such a router and one would attach a switch or, less
    preferably, a hub to such a line to distribute additional IP addresses
    assigned by it.

    Who supplies this "leased line" and what are their terms and conditions
    regarding multiple computers connected to it?
     
    Tom Stiller, Oct 6, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. GS

    riggor99999 Guest

     
    riggor99999, Oct 6, 2005
    #3
  4. GS

    GS Guest

    This is ISP giving service to home, they come home and hardcode this
    static IP address into PC (192.168.25.234), instaed of hardcode into
    PC, we asked them to configure Router WAN port, so that we can connect
    two PC's to Internet, both PC's connected to Router LAN ports, this is
    available in Asia, they won't give public IP addres to home, instaed
    they run RJ45 cable to home and hardcode this private IP address to PC,
    if we want both PC's, then they are suggesting us to take 2 cables for
    both PC's. I bought this router and connected, will it work in private
    IP address case?.
     
    GS, Oct 6, 2005
    #4
  5. From: "GS" <>

    | We got leased line (RJ45 cable directly to home), we have 2 PC's,
    | connected through Router, the WAM IP address is: 192.168.25.234 and LAN
    | side it is using 192.168.1 subnet (192.168.1.2 and 192.168.1.3), once
    | enter all WAN port details, th esetup wizard not finishing, and we are
    | not getting internet through Router. If we connect the cable directly
    | to PC and configure that WAN IP address (192.168.25.234), it works, but
    | one PC at a time, I tried both PC's, it works individually, if we
    | connect through Router, nope. Any suggestions, thanks in advance.

    You posted something similar 5 days ago.

    I'm still trying to figure out why thiese were posted to a Cable Modem News Group if you are
    NOT subscribing or getting a subscription for Cable Internet access. Such a post as this is
    Off Topic and one should always post On Topic.

    I suggest; alt.comp.networking.routers
     
    David H. Lipman, Oct 6, 2005
    #5
  6. GS

    Tom Stiller Guest

    No.
     
    Tom Stiller, Oct 6, 2005
    #6
  7. GS

    Bill M. Guest

    Just curious, Tom. Why wouldn't it work?
     
    Bill M., Oct 6, 2005
    #7
  8. GS

    Tom Stiller Guest

    IP addresses in the ranges:
    10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 (10/8 prefix)
    172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix)
    192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)
    are set aside for use as private IP addresses and are not routed. They
    are assigned by small routers providing Network Address Translation
    (NAT) functions.
     
    Tom Stiller, Oct 6, 2005
    #8
  9. GS

    Warren Guest

    Actually, they *are* just as routable as any valid IP address. However, they
    are not used for Internet purposes. The border routers on any private
    network will not route traffic for these ranges off the private network.
    Routers within the network can route traffic for these addresses.

    For example, most cable ISP's use Class A private addresses (10.x.x.x) for
    DOCSIS cable modems on their network. AT&T used Class B private addressed
    (172.16.x.x) on their private portion of the backbone, as do many other
    private networks of considerable size. It's not unusual to see addresses in
    that range as the last few hops on traceroutes once the traffic reaches the
    server's ISP's private network.

    And they aren't just "assigned by small routers". IP addresses are either
    manually assigned or assigned by DHCP servers. Most home "broadband routers"
    are NAT routers, switches and DHCP servers packaged in one box, but it's the
    DHCP server -- not the router -- that assigns the IP address.

    And while we're at it, the fact that they're set aside for private range
    address is irrelevant. The OP is trying to set-up a private LAN, which is
    exactly the purpose that these addresses were meant to serve.

    I would, however, suggest not using the Class C range if the ISP is already
    using the Class C private IP address range. If the router being used on the
    home LAN permits, I would try setting it to the Class B private IP address
    range.

    However, as someone else pointed out, this discussion is actually off-topic
    as it does not involve a cablemodem or cablemodem service. It would be
    better addressed in a networking group.

    --
    Warren H.

    ==========
    Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
    employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
    Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
    coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
    response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
    to go outside now.
    Shop for gifts for fans of "The Simpsons":
    http://www.holzemville.com/mall/simpsons
     
    Warren, Oct 6, 2005
    #9
  10. GS

    Tom Stiller Guest

    Thanks for the correction.
     
    Tom Stiller, Oct 6, 2005
    #10
  11. Small amendment:

    According to the RFCs, the border routers "must not"
    route traffic in the reserved ranges off of the private network.
    However, in practice, a number of them do permit the traffic.

    Also common is that networks which are not intended to use one of the
    RFC1918 private ranges internally might not filter out traffic
    sourced from that range... which is fine until someone starts forging
    traffic in the range... or until some NT system learns a remote private
    IP through WINS and starts trying to send it it...
     
    Walter Roberson, Oct 6, 2005
    #11
  12. GS

    GS Guest

    Warren,

    Thanks for info. Let me try with Class B on LAN side (172.16.1.1 and
    netmask 255.255.0.0), if that class B IP address and netmask is valid?.
    Thanks.
     
    GS, Oct 7, 2005
    #12
  13. From: "Warren" <>


    |
    | Actually, they *are* just as routable as any valid IP address. However, they
    | are not used for Internet purposes. The border routers on any private
    | network will not route traffic for these ranges off the private network.
    | Routers within the network can route traffic for these addresses.
    |
    | For example, most cable ISP's use Class A private addresses (10.x.x.x) for
    | DOCSIS cable modems on their network. AT&T used Class B private addressed
    | (172.16.x.x) on their private portion of the backbone, as do many other
    | private networks of considerable size. It's not unusual to see addresses in
    | that range as the last few hops on traceroutes once the traffic reaches the
    | server's ISP's private network.
    |
    | And they aren't just "assigned by small routers". IP addresses are either
    | manually assigned or assigned by DHCP servers. Most home "broadband routers"
    | are NAT routers, switches and DHCP servers packaged in one box, but it's the
    | DHCP server -- not the router -- that assigns the IP address.
    |
    | And while we're at it, the fact that they're set aside for private range
    | address is irrelevant. The OP is trying to set-up a private LAN, which is
    | exactly the purpose that these addresses were meant to serve.
    |
    | I would, however, suggest not using the Class C range if the ISP is already
    | using the Class C private IP address range. If the router being used on the
    | home LAN permits, I would try setting it to the Class B private IP address
    | range.
    |
    | However, as someone else pointed out, this discussion is actually off-topic
    | as it does not involve a cablemodem or cablemodem service. It would be
    | better addressed in a networking group.
    |
    | --
    | Warren H.
    |


    The first hop on my ADSL line from Verizon is; 10.5.63.1
     
    David H. Lipman, Oct 7, 2005
    #13
  14. GS

    Quaoar Guest

    OP originates on Google Groups. Many newsgroups are being overwhelmed
    by GG postings that are off-topic since GG posters are new,
    infrequent/irregular readers of newsgroups. GG is well on the way to
    destroy Usenet as it once was known.

    Q
     
    Quaoar, Oct 18, 2005
    #14
  15. From: "Quaoar" <>


    | OP originates on Google Groups. Many newsgroups are being overwhelmed
    | by GG postings that are off-topic since GG posters are new,
    | infrequent/irregular readers of newsgroups. GG is well on the way to
    | destroy Usenet as it once was known.
    |
    | Q
    |

    I totally agree !

    What's worse -- an AOL user posting via Google !
     
    David H. Lipman, Oct 18, 2005
    #15
  16. GS

    Warren Guest

    Actually, I'm less concerned about Google than I am about the web forums
    that add Usenet groups to their forums as if they were just another folder
    in their forum. Instead of just clueless newbies stumbling upon something
    new to them, they think that they're just in another web forum discussion,
    and follow the (sometimes very different) customs of that forum with no
    regard to the fact that the messages will be propagated through Usenet.

    --
    Warren H.

    ==========
    Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
    employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
    Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
    coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
    response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
    to go outside now.

    This fall, vacuum up your leaves instead of raking:
    http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker/blowers.html
     
    Warren, Oct 19, 2005
    #16
  17. From: "Warren" <>

    |
    | Actually, I'm less concerned about Google than I am about the web forums
    | that add Usenet groups to their forums as if they were just another folder
    | in their forum. Instead of just clueless newbies stumbling upon something
    | new to them, they think that they're just in another web forum discussion,
    | and follow the (sometimes very different) customs of that forum with no
    | regard to the fact that the messages will be propagated through Usenet.
    |
    | --
    | Warren H.
    |
    | ==========
    | Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
    | employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
    | Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
    | coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
    | response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
    | to go outside now.
    |
    | This fall, vacuum up your leaves instead of raking:
    | http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker/blowers.html
    |

    Good point !

    I ran into an odd situation in a alt.fishing and rec.outdoors.fishing several months ago.

    Someone would posting in alt.fishing and the reply would be posted rec.outdoors.fishing
    because the web based forum admin. screwed it all up.
     
    David H. Lipman, Oct 21, 2005
    #17
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.