I have been able to get a new mac recognized by just rebooting the cable
modem after attaching it to a different pc. No need to call clueless
level1 tech support.
Brian "Sonic" Whalen
Success = Preparation + Opportunity
On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Patrick Ramsey wrote:
> you know... this is very hard suggesting this because I am one for finding
> the absolute hardest way to accomplish any given project. Especially one
> that actually challenges me. But hey... Sometimes being smart is about
> taking the easy way...
>
> Why not just run the cable modem to the second machine temporarily? You
> could even phone ahead to your cable company to have them change the mac if
> need be, and when your connection stops working, you'll know to make the
> switch! :) I think ATT actually allows up to 4 macs currently so you may
> even be able to add a mac instead of exchange.
>
> -Patrick
>
> ps. this doesn't mean I have stopped working on the scenario! :)
>
> >>> "Leigh Anne Chisholm" 08/23/01 12:38PM >>>
> Application:
>
> Short term solution for a family member. One PC is currently configured
> with two NICs. One is configured to access the internet, while the other
is
> configured with an IP address in the 192.168 network range. The PC is used
> as a gateway by another family member who is absolutely addicted to email.
>
> The PC with the two NICs will be down for a couple of days--completely
> pulled apart. I'm not using my 1601R right now so I thought I'd see if I
> could get DHCP and PAT working to translate between the 192.168 network and
> the DHCP assigned IP address. A 1601R as you likely know, only has one
> Ethernet port. Plug the cable modem into the hub, plug the router into the
> hub. I can get outbound from the router to the Internet, but the router
> can't act as a gateway for the 192.168 clients because NAT is required.
>
> I'm currently working on another project and don't have much time to
> dedicate to this whimsical scenerio. The archives have indicated lots of
> people have dabbled with the theory of using NAT over a single
interface--so
> I was hoping someone actually got it to work. No, I don't know a single
> thing about NAT on a Cisco router. At home, we've got a dedicated PC
> running Linux to do the trick... Our old 386 that used to be our
> firewall/gateway is available but the room's pretty crowded and a 1601R
> takes up a lot less space than another PC.
>
>
> -- Leigh Anne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Patrick Ramsey
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 8:16 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: NAT using a single interface [7:16902]
>
>
> well I am not sure to what application this would be usefull for, but if
IOS
> supported this funtionallity, you would have to create sub interfaces with
> different ip addresses on different networks. then set your inside
> interface to one sub and the outside interface to the other sub just as you
> would on a normal router.
>
> But I have to ask... If you have 2 subnets on the same network, in theory
> you would have a lot of machines on each of those subnets trying to talk to
> one another. Is this correct? Why not just use that ethernet port as a
one
> armed router? (I would then assume that you are migrating your network
from
> one subnet to another) so this would not be a permanent intallation. (as
> this is very unefficient)
>
> If this is not the case, please explain your situation... I'm interested in
> the need for this scenario.
>
> -Patrick
>
> >>> "Leigh Anne Chisholm" 08/22/01 06:27PM >>>
> I've searched the Groupstudy archives... there's been much speculation as
> to whether or not this can be done. Has anyone managed to get NAT using a
> single Ethernet interface to work?
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=17034&t=16902
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
