Hello Scott. I've recently had issues of a similar nature. What I would like to do with my network is to have the ISP box do what it was payed for to do and that is to provide me with an internet connection and have the airport handle everything else. I'm not a huge fan of devices with extra and sometimes unwanted and or un-needed features sold to customers by ISP's. They rarely seem to work as expected and cause more trouble than they're worth, especially, when you try to integrate them in to an already existing network that is working fine as is. If you can, I'd recommend disabling what features you can on the ISP box and have the airport do what you've already configured it to do. This, from what I'm getting from you're post, was already in place so I'd do what I could to keep it that way if I were you. One thing that I've told numerous people is: "Don't fix what aint broken." Just some thoughts from a computer networking technician in training. Hope it helps.
On 2011-07-10, at 6:06 PM, Scott Howell wrote: > All, > > Here is the situation. I recently switched to Comcast business class. I was > provided with a SMC Network cable modem. THis box is actually a switch > consisting of four ports. Currently I have my AirPort router plugged into the > SMC and thus I have a double nat situation. THe SMC is configured to handout > DHCP addresses, which is how my AirPort gets its address, but I also am > handing out addresses using DHCP to the devices on my private network. I > actually am using DHCP reservations and for a specific reason. > I have setup mac address filtering to control certain machines on the > network. Unfortunately the SMC lacks some of the features for controlling > machines that are found in the Apple router. However, this double nat > situation can and has created some issues for me. I could of course just > bridge the AirPort and give up the whole deal on controlling machines on the > network. That may very well end up being necessary in the end; however, > before I do so, I wanted to ask if anyone had any thoughts. I did a little > searching around on Google, but unfortunately I'm not sure exactly what to > look for either. I don't think Google would take my message as a search term > either. :) > Although I do not have any plans to do this, the advantage of double nat in > this case is I could strap three more routers onto the gateway (SMC) and have > some fun. Now maybe there is a way around all of this, but seems the current > issue is IP6 tunneling, but I am more concerned if this could pose problems > with other services. So, thoughts welcome and I'll keep poking around and see > what I can learn. The good thing is that all seems to be working for the most > part, so this is not a critical need situation. Just need to make sure I can > vpn into the network at the office. :) > > Thanks, > Scott > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
