Re: Good alternative to BT2700HGV

RobP wrote:
On 6 Sep, 14:31, "Graham" <gra...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"RobP" <rpow...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1189080547.903802.244010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On 6 Sep, 12:46, "Graham" <gra...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"RobP" <rpow...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1189075266.249797.273540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,
I have a multi IP business package from BT and have been using the
BT2700HGV which they supply. The functionality seems excellent but I'm
finding it so unreliable and I'm on my 2nd box already.
I'm looking to replace it but I'm struggling to find a model that
matches the functionality. My main problem in doing so is that I don't
the technical terms to describe what the BT box is doing. It's
allowing me to assign my Public IPs to internal servers, but retain
firewall functionality (so it's not just routing through to them with
non-nat). I've read about multi-nat and that seems close to it, but
that seems to mean you have a private IP range and your translate the
Public Ip to the Private Ip on the router, but with the BT box, the
internal boxes do actually have the Public IP on them.
Looking at Multi-Nat supporting routers, I've seen a Draytek and a
Netgear, although I purchased the Netgear FVS338 and then was told by
Netgear support it only currently supports Multi-nat if you use the
ethernet WAN port and not the internal ADSL modem.
So I'm looking for any suggestions on a good alternative to the
BT2700HGV?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
It's not so much what the BT2700HGV is doing that is important, it's what
you actually want to achieve. Clearly you have to lean the language to
express this.
Perhaps you should explain why you require your internal servers to have
public IP addresses, and what services you are making available on these
servers. You could then identify what type of traffic is allowed in and
out
(i.e. you would have a specification for the firewall configuration).
Hi Graham,
Thanks for the reply. In the current configuration, there's www and
RDP open on one server, PPTP and SMTP on another, and some SAP
application ports on another. Not sure if I'm looking at it from the
wrong direction, but I'm trying to find a replacement modem/router/
firewall which replicates the current one's functionality and doesn't
require me to reconfigure the network if possible. It might be that I
do end up having to reconfigure things (I could probably get away with
one public facing IP and use port forwarding for instance), but at
this stage I'm trying to find a new box which won't require me to.
Looking briefly at the Vigor, you can map a "port plus internal IP"
combination to the external address. So incoming traffic for a given port
can be mapped to a specific server, and traffic for another port can be
mapped to the same or another server. I do this where I want a mailserver
to receive SMTP traffic, for example.

I think a problem would arise if traffic for a given port were targeted at
more than one server - perhaps somebody with experience of using Vigor
routers could explain whether this is possible.

--
Graham J

Thanks Graham. I'm going to check out the Drayteks and ask around on
their forum. The problem as far as I can tell is that BT give you a
public subnet (on our package) and (annoyingly) dynamically assign you
a WAN address. The point at which you specify one IP address on the
Vigor from your public subnet, is the point at which you are also
bypassing NAT. BT's router has been designed perfectly around the
service they offer, but I'm finding it a toughie to change.

Changing to a single static IP package would make this substantially
easier to work out. I don't think I'd have any port conflicts so
that's probably the way to go.

Thanks again for your input.

Rob


We have tons of Draytek 2600s and they work well with MultiNAT. Take care with the 2800 series as the latest firmware (as of last week) has a bug and regardless of what you setup, all traffic is sent to the system allocated the first public IP address - a real PITA!

I would seriously get a 2600+ or better on Ebay (the plain 2600 does not support QoS if you need it) - the are much better than the 2800s (but limited to 8Mbit ADSL)

Have a look at the forums at www.seg.co.uk




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Good alternative to BT2700HGV
    ... The functionality seems excellent but I'm ... Netgear support it only currently supports Multi-nat if you use the ... ethernet WAN port and not the internal ADSL modem. ... RDP open on one server, PPTP and SMTP on another, and some SAP ...
    (uk.telecom.broadband)
  • Re: Good alternative to BT2700HGV
    ... The functionality seems excellent but I'm ... ethernet WAN port and not the internal ADSL modem. ... RDP open on one server, PPTP and SMTP on another, and some SAP ...
    (uk.telecom.broadband)
  • Re: Good alternative to BT2700HGV
    ... matches the functionality. ... ethernet WAN port and not the internal ADSL modem. ... (i.e. you would have a specification for the firewall configuration). ... RDP open on one server, PPTP and SMTP on another, and some SAP ...
    (uk.telecom.broadband)
  • Re: Good alternative to BT2700HGV
    ... The functionality seems excellent but I'm ... Netgear, although I purchased the Netgear FVS338 and then was told by ... ethernet WAN port and not the internal ADSL modem. ... RDP open on one server, PPTP and SMTP on another, and some SAP ...
    (uk.telecom.broadband)
  • Re: Starting over with tcl and tk
    ... >> tcl web server. ... > package you need in your code you have to require explicitly. ... All the functionality in Tcllib together comes in at ... The instructions that accompany the tclhttpd package are then obsolete, ...
    (comp.lang.tcl)