From: FTP (ftpatalos.com)
Date: Tue Mar 14 2006 - 08:52:01 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

please see my replies below!

Thank you

On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 02:43:17PM +0100, Bernd Schoeller wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 02:20:15PM +0100, FTP wrote:
> > but isn't a way to route and translate connections via a existing static IP address? To have 'internal' IPs acting as static in their own right?
> > How do ISPs 'create' their own static IPs?
>
> Gee - we are talking about a huge area of topics here:
>
> First, ISP<->ISP traffic is handled way differently compared to
> MyLittleComputer<->ISP traffic (read up on the IP-protocol,
> PI-networks, BGP, OSPF, etc.)
>

I understand that! :-(

> Second, you can always use NAT to translate your internal IP addresses
> and ports to different ports (under a single address) on you router,
> but that is probably what you already have and not what you want.
>

correct. I have that already!

> Third, if you live in a house with a single address, you cannot
> publicly start announcing different addresses without the postal
> service knowing about it. If packets should arrive at your home, then
> you better make sure you write your street and number on the
> announcement, other things just won't work.
>

No but I use the following format: address+office1 ... address+officeN! That's what I try to achieve with the IPs as well but without having to use port numbers!

> Last but not least: _if_ your ADSL provider will assign and route
> multiple addresses to your router (for example a complete C network),
> then you can - of course - translate the different numbers into
> different numbers in your internal network. But then: why you are not
> using these IPs for your internal network directly?
>

well, that's not case. But even then, how can a ISP assign a complete C network just like this? What's behind that?

> Bernd

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]