| Author |
Message |
GS
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:28 am Post subject:
Re: we have private IP address on WAN port, no connection th |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
David H. Lipman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:20 pm Post subject:
Re: we have private IP address on WAN port, no connection th |
|
|
From: "Warren" <wholzem@hotmail.com>
|
| 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
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quaoar
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:32 am Post subject:
Re: we have private IP address on WAN port, no connection th |
|
|
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:EIc1f.3773$Tz2.3104@trnddc02...
| Quote: | From: "GS" <globalswamy@hotmail.com
| 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
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David H. Lipman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 3:35 am Post subject:
Re: we have private IP address on WAN port, no connection th |
|
|
From: "Quaoar" <quaoar@tenthplanet.net>
| 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 !
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Warren
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:04 am Post subject:
Re: we have private IP address on WAN port, no connection th |
|
|
David H. Lipman wrote:
| Quote: | From: "Quaoar" <quaoar@tenthplanet.net
| 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.
|
I totally agree !
What's worse -- an AOL user posting via Google !
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David H. Lipman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:02 am Post subject:
Re: we have private IP address on WAN port, no connection th |
|
|
From: "Warren" <wholzem@hotmail.com>
|
| 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.
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in