Good alternative to BT2700HGV

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.

Cheers

Rob

"RobP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> 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).

It is quite possible that a Vigor router would then achieve what you want.

There are much more sophisticated routers from the likes of Cisco.

--
Graham J

On 6 Sep, 12:46, "Graham" <gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
> "RobP" <rpow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>
>
>
> > 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.

Cheers
Rob

"RobP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> On 6 Sep, 12:46, "Graham" <gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
>> "RobP" <rpow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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

On 6 Sep, 14:31, "Graham" <gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
> "RobP" <rpow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 6 Sep, 12:46, "Graham" <gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "RobP" <rpow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:(E-Mail Removed) roups.com...
>
> >> > 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

"RobP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> On 6 Sep, 14:31, "Graham" <gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
>> "RobP" <rpow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 6 Sep, 12:46, "Graham" <gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> "RobP" <rpow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:(E-Mail Removed) roups.com...
>>
>> >> > 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
>

Have you tried using the 2 wire interface http://home/managment ? Yes
it is spelled wrongly!

Michael

RobP wrote:
> On 6 Sep, 14:31, "Graham" <gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
>> "RobP" <rpow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 6 Sep, 12:46, "Graham" <gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> "RobP" <rpow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>>>>> 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

On 6 Sep, 20:01, "Michael Shergold" <michael.sherg...@auntieclara.net>
wrote:
> "RobP" <rpow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 6 Sep, 14:31, "Graham" <gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "RobP" <rpow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:(E-Mail Removed) groups.com...
>
> >> > On 6 Sep, 12:46, "Graham" <gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> "RobP" <rpow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:(E-Mail Removed) roups.com...
>
> >> >> > 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
>
> Have you tried using the 2 wire interfacehttp://home/managment ? Yes
> it is spelled wrongly!
>
> Michael

Thanks Michael. Hadn't seen those pages, so thanks for the tip.

The problem I have, in case anyone has any ideas is this:

I have 3 machines behind the firewall that are using public IP
addresses from the range allocated by BT. Intermittently, one of them
will become completely inaccessible to any external traffic. Machines
on other side of the firewall can access it fine on the same IP, but
nothing comes through externally. Everything's OK again once I change
the IP on the server. Get about a day out of it before I have to
switch back to the previous one. Sorry, bit out of the scope of this
group, just though it was worth describing the prob in case anyone's
seen it. Possibly it's the PC itself with the prob, but no errors
logged and as I say, if you're the other side of the firewall and
still connecting on the same interface, there's no problems.

Rob

On 6 Sep, 21:34, Linker3000 <linker3...@google-mailnohyphen.com>
wrote:
> RobP wrote:
> > On 6 Sep, 14:31, "Graham" <gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "RobP" <rpow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:(E-Mail Removed) groups.com...
>
> >>> On 6 Sep, 12:46, "Graham" <gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> "RobP" <rpow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) egroups.com...
> >>>>> 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 atwww.seg.co.uk

Hi there,

Thanks for the info. Coincidentally I do have an old 2600G going
spare, but I wasn't convinced it properly supported mult-nat. Draytek
have a walkthrough where you enter your public IPs under some WAN
alias screen and then they should be available in a drop down when you
goto the port forwarding page, but I don't get that drop down with the
option to specify the external addresses. Maybe a firmware update is
in order.

Cheers - and thanks for the link.

Rob

RobP wrote:
> On 6 Sep, 21:34, Linker3000 <linker3...@google-mailnohyphen.com>
> wrote:
>> RobP wrote:
>>> On 6 Sep, 14:31, "Graham" <gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> "RobP" <rpow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>>>>> On 6 Sep, 12:46, "Graham" <gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> "RobP" <rpow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>>>>>>> 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 atwww.seg.co.uk
>
> Hi there,
>
> Thanks for the info. Coincidentally I do have an old 2600G going
> spare, but I wasn't convinced it properly supported mult-nat. Draytek
> have a walkthrough where you enter your public IPs under some WAN
> alias screen and then they should be available in a drop down when you
> goto the port forwarding page, but I don't get that drop down with the
> option to specify the external addresses. Maybe a firmware update is
> in order.
>
> Cheers - and thanks for the link.
>
> Rob
>
>

MultiNAT is setup on the same page you define your ISP - you should have
a button marked 'WAN IP Alias' right next to where you state whether you
have a fice dor dynamic WAN IP.

You can download the latest firmware from SEG's site.

Good luck.