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

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.

Reply to
GS
Loading thread data ...

You're going to have to post your router type and whether you can address it's config/status pages or not. Did you follow the router setup instructions ? In most cases just plugging it in and powering everything down and powering everything back up starting at the modem end and waiting for each device to come all the way up should get you going.

Reply to
$Bill

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?

Reply to
Tom Stiller

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?.

Reply to
GS

I agree - you may have to put the router in router mode versus gateway mode

Reply to
riggor99999

Especially since we don't even know what kind of router it is.

Reply to
$Bill

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.

Reply to
Warren

No.

Reply to
Tom Stiller

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.

Reply to
Tom Stiller

Thanks for the correction.

Reply to
Tom Stiller

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

Reply to
David H. Lipman

Just curious, Tom. Why wouldn't it work?

Reply to
Bill M.

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.

Reply to
GS

Yes but that's really a configuration issue not a hardware one. I setup routers all the time inside larger companies where I have a

192.168.x.zzz handing out addresses with a WAN on THAT router set to 192.168.y.zzz. Nothing wrong with this. But some (many?) older (maybe still) consumer routers will not handle this. Netgear does. I think current Linksys units do.

As to why I do this. :) Various reasons.

Reply to
David Ross

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...

Reply to
Walter Roberson

FWIW, my Linux firewall has no problem routing 10.x.x.x and 192.168.x.x addresses via VPN. In fact, it has two 192.168.x.x NICs as well as the

10.x.x.x VPN, in addition to my "real" IP address, assigned by my ISP. The computer at the other end of the VPN is on yet a third 192.168.x.x subnet.
Reply to
James Knott

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

Reply to
David H. Lipman

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
Reply to
Quaoar

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.

Reply to
Warren

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 !

Reply to
David H. Lipman

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.