Can't download Windows Updates or visit Microsoft.com
-
I bought my modem myself rather than Through Comcast so luckily I didn't have to deal with their crappy modems.
Anyway it all randomly started working lastnight. Microsoft started working again. No more high latecny and no constant loss of connection. No idea what happened as I didn't change anything.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Double NAT? is everyone here running two routers in series behind their ISP's connection?
Not me.
OK good I thought I had missed something completely.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
Double NAT? is everyone here running two routers in series behind their ISP's connection?
Not me. Never done that. I hate double nat.
Thing is, lots of folks don't know or cannot configure stuff.
When I was at the big blue Borg, had lots of folks who would double NAT a device behind a 2wire. Caused all kinds of weird shit when attempting to browse to Yahoo's mail site. Current U-Verse equipment unless properly configured will wind up with a double NAT scenario. Even configured differently will only be pseudo-public. Same thing happens at the big red V on their equipment.
Comcast has delivered lots of "routers" to folks so we wind up with lots of double NAT. And those devices are much harder to modify to bridge mode. Same thing with Time Warner, Cox, and Charter.
Sometimes its unavoidable. But it does fun things when you try it. Hence why every ISP will tell you to remove any third party equipment from their stuff to troubleshoot. Its not just because they are from a certain subcontinent and reading from a script. Clearing cache and cookies, yeah, that's in the script.
You're right, I forgot that some ISPs are now starting to provide NAT'ed connections to customers. If those customers want to protect themselves from the ISP, they have to install their own firewall, and poof double NAT'ing. One reason why I always suggest getting a separate cable modem and router when possible.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Double NAT? is everyone here running two routers in series behind their ISP's connection?
Not me.
OK good I thought I had missed something completely.
People are recomeding double NAT over there as a security practice. It gives you better security they claim to have two firewalls. So apparently some are.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
I bought my modem myself rather than Through Comcast so luckily I didn't have to deal with their crappy modems.
Anyway it all randomly started working lastnight. Microsoft started working again. No more high latecny and no constant loss of connection. No idea what happened as I didn't change anything.
Maybe the ISP had an upstream problem? I've seen this before when they had a bad route and whole sections of the internet were inaccessible.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Double NAT? is everyone here running two routers in series behind their ISP's connection?
Not me.
OK good I thought I had missed something completely.
People are recomeding double NAT over there as a security practice. It gives you better security they claim to have two firewalls. So apparently some are.
Double firewalls does not equal double NAT. Double firewalls used to be a standard practice and enterprises all still do this. But I know of none that do double NAT, many don't do NAT at all.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Double NAT? is everyone here running two routers in series behind their ISP's connection?
Not me.
OK good I thought I had missed something completely.
People are recomeding double NAT over there as a security practice. It gives you better security they claim to have two firewalls. So apparently some are.
Double firewalls does not equal double NAT. Double firewalls used to be a standard practice and enterprises all still do this. But I know of none that do double NAT, many don't do NAT at all.
Yes of course. But in this case they are reccomeding using two routers.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Yes of course. But in this case they are reccomeding using two routers.
Right, that's what I'm saying. Two routers and/or two firewalls doesn't suggest double NAT.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
Yes of course. But in this case they are reccomeding using two routers.
Right, that's what I'm saying. Two routers and/or two firewalls doesn't suggest double NAT.
If it's configured in that way. But they way they were suggestion is is using the second NAT to separate business related in the same building (parent company from sister company etc.) instead of using a single router with a firewall and separate subnets for each.
-
I don't see the point in over complicating it by using double NAT.
It just makes things more difficult for the poor bunny that has to troubleshoot it. -
This is just one of them I've seen recently. http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/859078-soho-router-to-router-dchp-works-static-doesnt
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
Yes of course. But in this case they are reccomeding using two routers.
Right, that's what I'm saying. Two routers and/or two firewalls doesn't suggest double NAT.
If it's configured in that way. But they way they were suggestion is is using the second NAT to separate business related in the same building (parent company from sister company etc.) instead of using a single router with a firewall and separate subnets for each.
That's different then.
-
@scottalanmiller Yeah. He flagged all of my responses as unrelated because his question was about removing a double NAT or setting up multiple subnets. And they were deleted.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller Yeah. He flagged all of my responses as unrelated because his question was about removing a double NAT or setting up multiple subnets. And they were deleted.
Wait... they got deleted? Seriously?
-
They'd better not delete my posts for trying to help him understand where his problems are. What a load of crap.
-
-
A Comcast tech I know said they had an issue with MTU being wrong which caused issues with packets being dropped.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Right, that's what I'm saying. Two routers and/or two firewalls doesn't suggest double NAT.
Yes it does. The typical SoHo gear does not have the routing capability out of the box to do any BUT basic NAT. This means double NAT always.
Additionally, the only way most people know how to set up gear is static/DHCP WAN and a NAT to the LAN.
So again, yes, two routers immediately suggests double NAT.
This does not mean two router technically suggests a double NAT, as it does not. But that is not a standard in practice skill.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Right, that's what I'm saying. Two routers and/or two firewalls doesn't suggest double NAT.
Yes it does. The typical SoHo gear does not have the routing capability out of the box to do any BUT basic NAT. This means double NAT always.
Additionally, the only way most people know how to set up gear is static/DHCP WAN and a NAT to the LAN.
So again, yes, two routers immediately suggests double NAT.
This does not mean two router technically suggests a double NAT, as it does not. But that is not a standard in practice skill.
But no IT pro or business would seriously suggest home equipment and even sub $100 business gear doesn't require NAT. Anyone in this category falls below the "business" line. It is and always has been standard to have double routers, but not double NAT, in business. This is common from both networking and systems training sides. That somewhere some confused home users suggest double NAT doesn't mean that IT recommendations of double routers suggests double NAT, or any NAT.
-
If you use NAT for "security" what the heck do they plan on doing when IPv6 is mainstream. I don't think that guy understands PCI compliance either.
