Cablemodem: 3 IPs -> 4 PCs ?

[Guest]

Hello!

Is it possible to use 4 PCs with only 3 fixed IPs in an elegant way?

Our Provider now has this special Offer with increased Download Rates for 3 fixed IP-Addresses. The Installation includes setting up the Modem and a Hub.

An easy solution seems to be, to connect the 4.Pc with one of the others to a Router/Switch (e.g. Linksys BEFSR41) and this again to the Hub. But putting an Switch beneath a hub feels rather wrong. Would it instead be possible to totally replace the Hub? And still keep the 3 IPs visible?

Maybe im just overanxious but i dont want them to get suspicious, about us paying for 3 but only using "1" IP. And i think having 3 independent is an advantage for some applications.

One more Question: Replacing the HUb, would also mean to replace a MAC? Must i use the one from the Hub (do they have one?) or take something completly different? Where would i find that?


Sorry for my bad english as im VERY tired, but it would be real nice if someone could answer.

 

[jlanka]

You're too overanxious. Most Cable companies don't have any problem with customers using Cable/DSL routers - they just don't support it. They shouldn't give a rats A$$ that you're paying them more money and not using what you paid for (just the extra speed).

Most likely after you pop the router on there and repower the cable modem, you should be good to go. You'll have to set up the router with one of the static IP's, then tell it to server IP addresses (DHCP) to your lan. That should do it. Most likely you won't have to concern yourself with MAC addresses.

<i>It's always the one thing you never suspected.</i>

 

[Raila]

Another possibility is to use one of the Stacics as a server setup, and have the 4th come off that one.

To Be or Not to be... DAMN but that is confusing!

 

[jlanka]

Yeah, but that would be a little more difficult to set up.

<i>It's always the one thing you never suspected.</i>

 

[Guest]

Ooops im still logged in ... :redface: I really wasnt quite clear :tongue: ...

Anyway, thanks for the fast replies! I agree, jlanka, a server is out of the question, as i want/need the PCs independent. And yes, using only 1 IP probably shouldnt be that much of a problem. I mean its 3* the price for 2* speed, but hey, some just need it .

But isnt it good to really make use of static IPs? (Except maybe for security issues). For example, for online gaming? Or is NAT all you need?

About the MAC, what if i do need to fiddle with it? How to do? The description for the Linksys says to take one of a Network device NOT in use?! I thought u should replace it??

Many thanks again!

 

[jlanka]

If you have static IP's available, you can do fancy stuff to enable 1 of your PC's (the gaming PC for instance) to be directly connected to the cable modem (via a hub or switch for instance) and the rest using the router. This way you've got a little of both. You can also configure whats know as a DMZ on the router (the router of course would be using a static IP) which will let the gaming packets onto your lan, to the PC(s) you want them to get to. There are a number of possibilities.

AFA this MAC address question, the only reason I can possibly see to worry about it is if your ISP is caching MAC addresses and will not forward traffic from any other addresses than the one's they've got in their table. Actually, their routers probably don't even examine MAC addresses (router implies layer 3 or network layer which is IP address, not MAC address, which is Data Link or layer 2). Usually the only reason to "masquerade" MAC address is if a DHCP server caches it, and won't serve an IP address to other than what it has in it's table. I've seen this done by the cable modem itself, and can usually be flushed by repowering it. You don't have that issue because you have static IP's

To masquerade a MAC address (if you really need it), the Cable/DSL router config usually has a page to enter that info.

<i>It's always the one thing you never suspected.</i>

 

[Guest]

Thanks again for clearing up some nasty fog. I even was nearly convinced until i discovered that LinkSys thing costing DOUBLE over here in Europe! Puts quite a strain on the savings. Dont think i like to direct import and have the trouble with finding power adapters and Support.

So maybe ill just bite the sour apple, get the extra ip, a neat switch and be official. Still cheaper and potentially faster than standard. (*Urgh, beeing such a coward sucks!*)

Greetings!

 

[jlanka]

There are a bunch of other routers available. I like the SMC Barricade 7004, which also has a printer port. There are others as well. Maybe something will be more suitable for your budget.

<i>It's always the one thing you never suspected.</i>

 

[Guest]

Maybe someones interested:

<A HREF="http://www.practicallynetworked.com/pg/router_details.asp?ProdID=BEFSR41&ProdID=SMC7004ABR&ProdID=RT314" target="_new">Some Comparison of the most popular</A>

The <b>SMC 7004ABR</b> would have really been a nice option, but unfortunatly its difficult to get right now (atleast here in Europe). So i would have to take the older <b>SMC7004BR</b> to which i slightly prefer the cheaper <b>Netgear RT314</b>.

All of them seem to have slight ADV/DISADV, but the Netgears is the cheapest and I dont really care about Net-Printing.
So, except the Telnet-configuration extension (which is ok with me), anything i miss with the Netgear?

<i>Just discovered the slightly more expensive but available <b>Netgear RP114</b> follow up, which now is my favorite choice. Any flaws with that?</i><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Xane on 12/07/01 02:30 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Guest]

Ok, i think i figured it out: What i asked for is called Multi-NAT, which is only supported by expensive Routers and the Netgear RT314 flashed with Zyxel-Firmware. But thats quite risky. Especially with the RP314, which has no serial port, so theres no backing up!
So, i guess i can live with single NAT.