Sign up
 Vonage  

       
 
Vonage Forum Menu

Vonage Forums
Vonage VoIP Forum
Wickyvum Posted:
blocking viagra
viagra emails
viagra without a
doctor
prescription
ed treatments
...

In The Forum:
Hard Wiring - Installation
Topic:
Set-up tight-fisted generics no medicine
On Dec 05, 2016 at 17:40:46

tplink Posted:
Im trying to add
my HT802 vonage
adapter to my home
network. I
currently have
...

In The Forum:
Hard Wiring - Installation
Topic:
Vonage behind switch
On Dec 05, 2016 at 06:35:11

MichaelMub Posted:
PORN...
In The Forum:
Vonage
Topic:
The best pron
On Dec 04, 2016 at 10:22:56

Dwightkaw Posted:
kredyt bez
zaświadcze
24; kredyt bez
zaświadcze
24; o dochodach
...

In The Forum:
Vonage
Topic:
kredyt bez zaświadczeń
On Dec 03, 2016 at 03:27:10

Kevingrarl Posted:
Су
95;ас&
#1085;иl
1;
пі
76;пр&
#1080;&
...

In The Forum:
Vonage
Topic:
Сучас&
On Dec 02, 2016 at 12:51:38

IsaawUnace Posted:
does cialis work
as well as cialis
add.cgi buy
cialis cialis
the team <a
...

In The Forum:
Vonage
Topic:
Condition good pill instead of ed
On Dec 01, 2016 at 11:11:59

MatrickVop Posted:
buy cialis today
columbus oh
generic cialis
buy cialis online
registered users
...

In The Forum:
Vonage
Topic:
Classify miserly pills no means
On Nov 28, 2016 at 10:42:47

dracossumo Posted:
Ко
84;па&
#1085;иn
3; Tritel
пр
77;до
...

In The Forum:
Vonage
Topic:
&#1048;&#1085;&#1090;&#1077;&#1088;&
On Nov 27, 2016 at 23:00:39

DWSupport Posted:
After recent
Vonage update that
took place on the
4th and 5th of
Nov. E-mails with
...

In The Forum:
Vonage
Topic:
Voicemail Not Forwarding to Outlook Accounts
On Nov 10, 2016 at 12:23:26

peterlee Posted:
Had a call from a
Hospital in Ajax,
Ontario to my home
in
Scarborough, Onta
rio
...

In The Forum:
Vonage Canada
Topic:
Hospital Incoming call unable to connect
On Nov 08, 2016 at 11:59:50


Vonage VoIP Forums

Vonage In The News
Vonage Holdings Corp. Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2013 Results

Carolyn Katz Elected to Board of Directors of Vonage Holdings Corp.

Syndication

Vonage Customer Reviews
Vonage vs. Time Warner Cable SoCal
Vonage vs. Time Warner Cable SoCal



Vonage UK Review
Vonage UK Review



Vonage Pros and Cons for 2006
Vonage Pros and Cons for 2006



Vonage, a VT2142 and a RTP300, My Experiences - A Detailed Review
Vonage, a VT2142 and a RTP300, My Experiences - A Detailed Review



Salt Lake City: impressions after several months
Salt Lake City: impressions after several months




Vonage Reviews


Post new topic   Reply to topic  Vonage® VoIP Forum - Vonage News, Reviews And Discussion » Vonage Forum Archive
Author Message
EzCo
Vonage Forum Evangelist
Vonage Forum Evangelist


Joined: Jul 21, 2005
Posts: 533
Location: Southeastern PA

PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

FYI, this is my setup, it's pretty similar to what you are trying to accomplish.

Cable <---- Cisco 1711 <--- WGR614
..........................^
..........................|
..........................|
.....................RPT300

Downstream devices are connected to their upsteam via their "WAN" port. Devices are connected off the 1711, RPT300, and the WGR614.
View user's profile Send private message
DallasFlier
Vonage Forum Master
Vonage Forum Master


Joined: Mar 03, 2005
Posts: 277
Location: Dallas, TX

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

EzCo wrote:
By connecting the WAN port to a LAN/switch port on the same router, then connecting another switch port on the same router to an upstream switch port they essentially did just connect the WAN port to an upstream router (switch in the case of the setup in the link you referenced). They just waisted two local switch ports to do it.


It sure would be nice if you knew what you were talking about before you go spouting off with totally WRONG information. The connection you describe above is NOT the same, and it doesn't "just waist (sp) two local switch ports to do it." The point of that connection is to allow the secondary router to act as a bridge, and to be able to connect wired computers to the remaining LAN ports of BOTH routers, and they'll be on the same subnet and able to talk to each other.

EzCo wrote:
Technically NAT is when one IP address is translated to another IP address with no modification to the source TCP/UDP port. It's strictly a one-for-one basis. For every internal IP address, you need one external IP address to NAT to.


WRONG again. NAT most certainly allows for one to many, and the correct acronym IS definitely NAT. PAT, strictly speaking, represents a subset of NAT, but NAT refers to the overall translation methodology, and is correct terminology, as can clearly be seen within the RFC's below. NAT stands for "Network Address Translator" or Translation, and was originally defined by the IETF in RFC1631 in 1994.

http://bgp.potaroo.net/ietf/idref/rfc1631/

RFC1631 was superceded by RFC3022, which was published in 2001. Its been called NAT from the very beginning.

http://bgp.potaroo.net/ietf/idref/rfc3022/

And to NateHoy, NAPT actually stands for Network Address Protocol Translation, and is a translator to and from IPv4 to IPv6.

http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/networking/napt/

_________________
TWC 20M/2M w/Moto DOCSIS 3 --> WRT54G v2 (Tomato F/W) --> 4 PC's, 2 wireless; 4 networked DirecTV boxes; PS3 (powerline wired) & Wii (wireless) VT2442 (routing OFF), RTP300 (routing OFF) & V-Portal - Total of 4 Vonage lines
View user's profile Send private message
EzCo
Vonage Forum Evangelist
Vonage Forum Evangelist


Joined: Jul 21, 2005
Posts: 533
Location: Southeastern PA

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

Quote:
It sure would be nice if you knew what you were talking about before you go spouting off with totally WRONG information. The connection you describe above is NOT the same, and it doesn't "just waist (sp) two local switch ports to do it." The point of that connection is to allow the secondary router to act as a bridge, and to be able to connect wired computers to the remaining LAN ports of BOTH routers, and they'll be on the same subnet and able to talk to each other.


If you had any clue what you were talking about you would realize doing that is a complete waste. Look at the diagram, these guys don't even have any computers connected to the downstream router. That WAN port gets the exact same address it would have gotten if they just connected it to the upstream switch. "and they'll be on the same subnet and able to talk to each other" You think that's a requirement for computers to be able to talk to each other? Maybe you need a refresher course.

Quote:
WRONG again. NAT most certainly allows for one to many, and the correct acronym IS definitely NAT. PAT, strictly speaking, represents a subset of NAT, but NAT refers to the overall translation methodology, and is correct terminology, as can clearly be seen within the RFC's below. NAT stands for "Network Address Translator" or Translation, and was originally defined by the IETF in RFC1631 in 1994.


NAT could allow for one to many, but I think you mean many to one. Yes, junior, EVERYTHING that involves network address translation is technically NAT. PAT is certainly not a "subset" of NAT, it's an expansion of basic NAT. You are correct only in general terms that many to one address translation is NAT. If you've ever configured a real network device you would know if you configured static NAT or dynamic NAT, it's one to one. If you configured PAT, aka NAT overload, you configured many to one. You cannot have many to one without port address translation.
View user's profile Send private message
enodo
Full Forum Member
Full Forum Member


Joined: Nov 01, 2005
Posts: 44

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

A lot of flaming going on here. I don't see why.

I can only bring this to bear: the radio button on the administrator screen on the RTP300 says that what I can do is disable firewall and NAT. (Not NAPT or PAT.)

So the question that is still outstanding is what that radio button does. One person suggested that it would turn off the access to the WAN side, but it doesn't actually seem to be true.
View user's profile Send private message
enodo
Full Forum Member
Full Forum Member


Joined: Nov 01, 2005
Posts: 44

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

Oh, and one other thing... EzCo's diagram of his network will certainly work, but if and when QoS works on the RTP300 (I'm not sure if it does currently) you'll lose the benefit of it because on the upstream router will not prefer the telephone traffic over the data traffic. That's why I put the RTP300 first in the chain
View user's profile Send private message
NateHoy
Vonage Forum MVM
Vonage Forum <b>MVM</b>


Joined: Nov 01, 2005
Posts: 2257
Location: New England

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

enodo wrote:
A lot of flaming going on here. I don't see why.

I can only bring this to bear: the radio button on the administrator screen on the RTP300 says that what I can do is disable firewall and NAT. (Not NAPT or PAT.)

So the question that is still outstanding is what that radio button does. One person suggested that it would turn off the access to the WAN side, but it doesn't actually seem to be true.


When you disable NAT, your router no longer turns your one IP address into many. In other words, your individual PC's will then have to go to the DHCP server of your service provider to get their own IP addresses if they want to talk on the Internet.

Most ISP's only allow you one address. If you turn off NAT, each of your PC's will need their own address. And I doubt (though I'm not sure about this bit) that most consumer-grade routers will even route the requests, so basically what probably happens is your router is the only thing that can talk out on the Internet.

Of course, you'll still have a routing table in place if you just click the radio button and apply, so the routing will probably still happen, at least for a while. Restarting the router should "apply" the settings. I doubt you'll like the results. Wink

But I don't know for sure. I do know that my Cable ISP gives me only one IP address, so of course I need to use NAT and experimentation with my router would be useless. Maybe my router would be perfectly happy without NAT, and basically become a high-end switch with some port management capabilities if my ISP allowed multiple IP addresses.
View user's profile Send private message
NateHoy
Vonage Forum MVM
Vonage Forum <b>MVM</b>


Joined: Nov 01, 2005
Posts: 2257
Location: New England

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

enodo wrote:
Oh, and one other thing... EzCo's diagram of his network will certainly work, but if and when QoS works on the RTP300 (I'm not sure if it does currently) you'll lose the benefit of it because on the upstream router will not prefer the telephone traffic over the data traffic. That's why I put the RTP300 first in the chain


Well, though, the router he does have in place is a Cisco 1711. That's a pretty serious piece of routing gear, and already has a working QoS implementation. So he probably sets the RTP300 to get tip-top priority in his Cisco 1711's QoS, and beats anything the RTP300 could ever do hands-down, even if it eventually does have QoS.

I'd put a Cisco as my front line any day, if I could afford one. But at $1000, I'd be better off (financially) getting a POTS line to solve any QoS problems I might have. (grin)
View user's profile Send private message
EzCo
Vonage Forum Evangelist
Vonage Forum Evangelist


Joined: Jul 21, 2005
Posts: 533
Location: Southeastern PA

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

enodo wrote:
Oh, and one other thing... EzCo's diagram of his network will certainly work, but if and when QoS works on the RTP300 (I'm not sure if it does currently) you'll lose the benefit of it because on the upstream router will not prefer the telephone traffic over the data traffic. That's why I put the RTP300 first in the chain


I follow what you're saying, but I don't use QoS on the RPT300 as I'm not concerned abot prioritizing voice traffic at the egress of that device, but I do have QoS on the egress of the 1711. You should just do what's best for your setup, which it looks like you are.
View user's profile Send private message
enodo
Full Forum Member
Full Forum Member


Joined: Nov 01, 2005
Posts: 44

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

But you begin to see the method to my madness! The only device downstream of the RTP300 in my setup is another router! So my thought was - let's let that router pull its WAN IP directly from the ISP, and have the RTP300 just act as a passthrough. The weird thing is that you'd think that if I click Disable Firewall and NAT, the RTP300 would be smart enough to disable its DHCP as well and just pass that request up to the ISP. It doesn't. When I also turn off the local DHCP the second router still couldn't get an IP from the ISP.

And my other question is: assuming I got all this to work, does the SIP require the RTP300 to pull an IP number from the ISP? If so, that could explain why it all isn't working.

Of course, the documentation from Linksys/Vonage of all of this is minimal to nonexistent.
View user's profile Send private message
EzCo
Vonage Forum Evangelist
Vonage Forum Evangelist


Joined: Jul 21, 2005
Posts: 533
Location: Southeastern PA

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

I can see that Enodo's phone would work though, regardless of the NAT setting. Since his RPT300 got a publically routable IP address from his ISP, the RPT300 can register itself to Vonage. It's the PCs behind that should have the Internet connectivity issues.
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Vonage Service Plans


Vonage VoIP Members
Members List Members
New leonaxr3
New Today 1
Yesterday 7
Total 99017

Who Is On Site
Visitors 87
Members 0
Total 87


Vonage VoIP Forum Members:
Login Here
Not a Member? You can Register Here
As a registered member you will have access to the VoIP Speed Test, Vonage Service Announcements and post comments in the
Vonage VoIP Forums

Vonage Stock Price
Value: 6.90
Change:   N/A
Up to 15 Minute Delay

Site Search
 






†AK and HI residents pay $29.95 shipping. ††Limited time offer. Valid for residents of the United States (&DC), 18 years or older, who open new accounts. Offer good while supplies last and only on new account activations. One kit per account/household. Offer cannot be combined with any other discounts, promotions or plans and is not applicable to past purchases. Good while supplies last. Allow up to 2 weeks for shipping. Other restrictions may apply.

1Unlimited calling and other services for all residential plans are based on normal residential, personal, non-commercial use. A combination of factors is used to determine abnormal use, including but not limited to: the number of unique numbers called, calls forwarded, minutes used and other factors. Subject to our Reasonable Use Policy and Terms of Service.

2Shipping and activation fees waived with 1-year agreement. An Early Termination Fee (with periodic pro-rated reductions) applies if service is terminated before the end of the first 12 months. Additional restrictions may apply. See Terms of Service for details.

HIGH SPEED INTERNET REQUIRED. †VALID FOR NEW LINES ONLY. RATES EXCLUDE INTERNET SERVICE, SURCHARGES, FEES AND TAXES. DEVICE MAY BE REFURBISHED. If you subscribe to plans with monthly minutes allotments, all call minutes placed from both from your home and registered ExtensionsTM phones will count toward your monthly minutes allotment. ExtensionsTM calls made from mobiles use airtime and may incur surcharges, depending on your mobile plan. Alarms, TTY and other systems may not be compatible. Vonage 911 service operates differently than traditional 911. See www.vonage.com/911 for details.

** Certain call types excluded.

www.vonage-forum.com is not an official Vonage support website & is independently operated.
All logos and trademarks are property of their respective owners. All comments are property of their posters.
All other www.vonage-forum.com content is © Copyright 2002 - 2013 by 4Sight Media LLC.

Thinking of signing up for Vonage but have questions?
Business and Residential customers can call Toll Free 24 hours a day at: 1-888-692-8074
No Vonage Promotion Code or Coupon Codes are required at www.vonage.com to receive any special,
best Vonage cheap deals, free sign up offers or discounts.

[ | | | | | ]

Vonage Forum Site Maps

Vonage | VoIP Forum | How VoIP Works | Wiring and Installation Page Two | International Rate Plans 2 | Internet Phone
Promotion | Vonage Review | VoIP | Broadband Phone | Free Month | Rebate | Vonnage | Vontage | VoIP | Phone Service
Phone | llamadas ilimitadas a Mexico | Latest News | VoIP Acronyms | Deal | Philippines Globe Phone | Site Maps

The Vonage Forum provides the Vonage sign up Best Offer Promotion Deal.
If you are considering signing up for Vonage and have found our Vonage News, Customer Reviews, Forums
& all other parts of this site useful, please use our Vonage Sign up page.


Vonage VoIP Phone Service is redefining communications by offering consumers
& small business VoIP Internet phones, an affordable alternative to traditional phone service.
The Vonage VoIP Forum Generated This Page In: 0.72 Seconds and 413 Pages In The Last 60 Seconds
The Vonage VoIP Forum