dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
20
share rss forum feed

garys_2k
Premium
join:2004-05-07
Farmington, MI
Reviews:
·Callcentric
·callwithus
reply to MrMazda86

Re: Disable NAT on Vonage V-Portal

Someone once posted a direct phone number for Vonage's tier 2 support people, hosted in NJ instead of overseas. Searing ought to bring that up. Possibly these more technically inclined can help you by remotely setting up your box as a pass through device. I agree that the odds of your getting root access to it from Vonage are about zero.

MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON

1 edit
Strangely enough, it was pretty easy to get it from them. From what I've been able to find though, they allege that turning off DHCP will disable NAT as well, however this is not the case.

As for the SpeedTouch 516, once NAT is disabled, you cannot use only one device with NAT, while the others are directly exposed unfortunately. This modem just does NOT permit for this kind of thing unfortunately.

This kind of frustrates me actually because it seems that I cannot setup my Vonage device in the only configuration that will work to save me from having to either get additional IP addresses, or otherwise make changes that I don't want to have to make. What I also don't understand is why Vonage doesn't provide an easy way of doing this.

As for the switch, it's a 16-port switch. Prior to switching to TekSavvy, I was with Bell without a static IP, which allowed me to establish an individual PPPoE session for each system, but I can't do that in this configuration. This is reeeeeally beginning to frustrate me because it seems there's no way to do a lot of things with Vonage equipment.

(EDIT: I just spoke with Vonage and it seems that either their staff don't know what the hell they're talking about, or it's impossible to disable the NAT on a Vonage adapter, therefore making it 100% useless for what I need, thereby requiring an additional expense on my part to make my service work with all 5 computers on the same network. I'm seriously not happy about this. It seems to me that it's nothing more than Vonage's way of trying to be cheap and save money.)

MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON
reply to garys_2k
said by garys_2k:

Someone once posted a direct phone number for Vonage's tier 2 support people, hosted in NJ instead of overseas. Searing ought to bring that up. Possibly these more technically inclined can help you by remotely setting up your box as a pass through device. I agree that the odds of your getting root access to it from Vonage are about zero.

You mean this one? --> 732-528-2600

garys_2k
Premium
join:2004-05-07
Farmington, MI
Reviews:
·Callcentric
·callwithus
reply to MrMazda86
Probably 90%+ of their customers have a single public IP and use DHCP-served NAT for anything but one connection. Your use is definitely outside of their operating bounds.

Would you consider using a provider that won't force you to use proprietary hardware? What you want to do would be entirely straightforward for just about any standard SIP provider, using either an ATA with analog phones, SIP phones or a PBX.

I think that phone number is the right one for advanced support, yes.

MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON

1 edit
There's nothing "proprietary" about my provider. Every DSL provider within Canada uses the same method of subnetting an IP address block for direct exposure to the internet through one modem the same way. You can use *any* DSL modem and *any* router (including the ones built into the modem, depending on the modem and your intended configuration).

The problem is that I have 5 different computers, a /29 subnet (which only comes with 6 IPs, 1 of which must be assigned to the routing device on the LAN side). Currently, only 4 of the computers are hooked to the switch that the modem feeds into. The 5th one had to be hooked into the V-Portal's LAN port, thus assigning the 6th IP address to the V-Portal, not the computer.

If Vonage supported a way of being able to disable the NAT function like just about any other ordinary router (except most D-Link models), I could plug the V-Portal's WAN port into the modem, then plug it's LAN port (and all 5 computers) into the switch. With the modem in bridge mode, I could bypass it completely by establishing the PPPoE link with the V-Portal, then assigning the 173.xxx.xxx.225 address to the V-Portal on the LAN side, which would mean the V-Portal is connected directly with the PPPoE link, and effectively, the other 5 IP addresses would act as though directly exposed to the internet, without the need for port forwarding.

(EDIT: I forgot to mention.... In the UNITED STATES, all DSL connections establish their link to the internet over PPPoA, which is handled by the modem. If anything, PPPoA is the "proprietary" system, because it creates even bigger headaches when doing any kind of networking, which only imposes FORCED firewalls and blockades, which can only inhibit traffic, unless specifically configured. With PPPoE, the link is established directly to the device, which allows you to bridge the modem, then either use a separate device such as a computer or router to establish the link to the internet. This also allows for connection on demand, which has its perks also.)


NetFixer
Freedom is NOT Free
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage
said by MrMazda86:

(EDIT: I forgot to mention.... In the UNITED STATES, all DSL connections establish their link to the internet over PPPoA, which is handled by the modem...

That is not a factual statement. The two DSL providers that I have used (and done work for) in the past 10 years (AT&T and Covad) supported (and recommended) using PPPoE. Both did also support PPPoA, but it was not the preferred method (and it was not the default method used by the DSL routers that they supplied). AT&T has in fact stopped allowing the use of PPPoA in many of their locations that still use ATM based DSLAMs. AT&T has also replaced both PPPoA and PPPoE for their U-verse branded DSL with certificate based DHCP.
--
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

garys_2k
Premium
join:2004-05-07
Farmington, MI
Reviews:
·Callcentric
·callwithus
reply to MrMazda86
said by MrMazda86:

If Vonage supported a way of being able to disable the NAT function like just about any other ordinary router (except most D-Link models), I could plug the V-Portal's WAN port into the modem, then plug it's LAN port (and all 5 computers) into the switch. With the modem in bridge mode, I could bypass it completely by establishing the PPPoE link with the V-Portal, then assigning the 173.xxx.xxx.225 address to the V-Portal on the LAN side, which would mean the V-Portal is connected directly with the PPPoE link, and effectively, the other 5 IP addresses would act as though directly exposed to the internet, without the need for port forwarding.

The "proprietary" part I meant was the Vonage box, not your IP service. If you used a different VSP then you could use off the shelf, open, routing/ATA hardware. Vonage locks its boxes, as you've seen. Most other providers do not.

MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON
Ah... From a technological point of view, locking your devices solely to your network is definitely a means of trying to force your own crap down the throats of the users, generally for making sure that Ali Babba Shaqua Shouvez in Bangladesh can follow everything through because it's a "standard". The great thing about "standards" is that there's so many to choose from.

The only gripe I have with such a proprietary network locking (which is no different than network locking a cell phone really) is that they do it in such a way that it creates issues such as this where such a standard impedes on the ability to support such standard things. It's kind of aggravating really.