> We are now hooking up a new sub that requires a dedicated, non-NATed IP. Is there a way to pass through an additional IP without burning a small subnet?
Technically yes. Realistically no. You could put a private address on their router and then masquerade it as a new public IP on the 450. This tends to cause more hassle then what you really didn't save. I've also tried eoip tunnels to things and that functions but it's such a pain to support. Just do it the "right" way and route down to their equipment. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Bill Prince < [email protected]> wrote: > > We are running short on IP addresses, and I wonder if there is a way to do > this without splitting a subnet and losing the overhead IPs for a subnet. > > I have a remote tower serving a handful of subscribers, and am using an > RB450 to NAT them through a single IP. > > We are now hooking up a new sub that requires a dedicated, non-NATed IP. > Is there a way to pass through an additional IP without burning a small > subnet? > > Say the RB450 is NATing most of the subs through 1.2.3.122 > > And I want to put the dedicated sub on 1.2.3.124 (or something). > > How do I handle the fact that the gateway for both for 1.2.3.124 is not on > the same subnet? > > > > > -- > bp > > ______________________________**_________________ > Mikrotik mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.butchevans.com/**mailman/listinfo/mikrotik<http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik> > > Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik > RouterOS > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.butchevans.com/pipermail/mikrotik/attachments/20110921/aa3607de/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Mikrotik mailing list [email protected] http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik RouterOS
