Being assigned '9' addresses is really strange since that isn't a proper subnet. More below.
On Sat, 24 May 2003, Jon Schlegel wrote: > Hi All, > > Please Note: This is a refined request from a previous post (see below). > > I have a server host that that needs its network interface set to its > chosen, registered, public, IP. Without going into details, packet > sniffing, etc. shows that operating this server behind NAT does not at > all appear to be an option. > > The typical solution, as pointed out previously, would be to operate the > server host's interface on its desired, registered, public IP, use IP > Pass Through between the server host on the PSN and the Internet on the > EXT, then route the desired IP into GB via a different but registered, > public network. If you have static assigned IPs, those IPs must be routed to your box by your ISP, there is no alternative if those IPs are communicating with the Internet. Your above paragraph is correct and complete if you stop at EXT and drop the remaining phrases. Use of a different but registered public network makes no sense. If you are looking for redundant connections between your network and the Internet, that probably isn't possible on a DSL/gnatbox budget. > > A dialog with the ISP seems to indicate that providing this route would > be > difficult due to a limitation of resources available to their DSL > customers. Here is an important excerpt from the ISP's response to me > which indicates their ability in this regard. > > "We can only route addresses that we [the ISP] have control > over. But among those we control, we have designated the [W.X.Y.Z] > block for DSL. It's a full "Class C" network with a subnet mask of > 255.255.255.0. All our DSL customers are within this network. > [The telco's] equipment (DSLAMs, etc) is specifically configured to > hand out these addresses (and only these addresses)." > > My interpretation is that there are no other networks available for the > ISP to use to provide the needed route. My question to the list then > becomes > > Given the above constraints, does anyone have any ideas for a solution, > implementable at my end that, will allow operation of a host, via GB > without NAT, with the host's network interface set to its chosen, > registered, public, IP? I think you have conceived of the need of special routing which isn't required and that is confusing your ISP. The addresses you are already assigned will be routed as needed will work. Be aware that your PSN sub-net will consume at least 4 of your dedicated IPs as you will have to define a minimal subnet. Every subnet has a net address ( binary 0) and broadcast address (binary all 1s) and must be a power of two in size. As I noted above, 9 is a bizarre IP allocation since the normal values would be 4, 8, 16, 32, ... . I guess it could work. The subnet noted in my prior paragraph will have to be allocated to a propery aligned group of 4 addresses within your block of 9. > > Some particulars that may be helpful (redundant info included for clarity) > * My Assigned IPs: Block of nine (9) contiguous static IPs > within the above stated [W.X.Y.0] class C network > * Above IP's arrive on the above stated [W.X.Y.0] ([255.255.255.0] > subnet) Class C network (i.e. assigned IPs are not routed) > * Broadcast IP: [W.X.Y.255] (returns MAC address of DSL modem) > * Default Route to ISP: [W.X.Y.1] > > Reference: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg04119.html > > > Regards, > Jon > > ------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
