Static IP problems :(

[five.five-six]

It is not going to see a whole lot of traffic. There are only about 8 boxes on the network that get used and one or two remote users. I do manage a few ASR 9000's but those are just a teensy bit larger than what I need here. I am very comfortable with CLI, there are several platforms I can literally do in my sleep, I am just not interested in learning a new platform.

[Rivers]

Since the OP appears to be pretty technically fluent, please don't take offense at my slightly remedial answer. It might help others who have similar issues.

My setup includes a static IP from Road Runner to their modem > to my Apple Airport Extreme router > to my local network on which the computer with my video surveillance files & software has a static IP to my local network.

I have my Airport router set to port forward (say "port 1000") to the computer's local static IP address. The surveillance software on that computer has port 1000 designated as its contact port. So all traffic pointed to "port 1000" from the WAN (outside) static IP address gets directed to that specific computer on my LAN (internal).

To access from any web browser, I just type in my Road Runner static IP address, say 66.55.44.33 plus the port > 66.55.44.33:1000 to view my live surveillance videos.

This works from computers, iPads, iPhones, and I'm sure SmartPhones in general. This setup has been flawless, easy to configure and maintain.

[bigbearbear]

If you want to be cheap and don't mind a little ghetto setup, simply put a switch "behind" the bridge mode DSL modem, and buy any cheap router you can find from Fry's. The cheap ones only allow 1 static IP but since they're cheap, you can put multiple routers on the switch, each holding a single static IP. Just turn off the DHCP all but one of them so that your internal networks won't have multiple IP range assigned, or not, if you prefer it.

[bigbearbear]

If you want to be cheap and don't mind a little ghetto setup, simply put a switch "behind" the bridge mode DSL modem, and buy any cheap router you can find from Fry's. The cheap ones only allow 1 static IP but since they're cheap, you can put multiple routers on the switch, each holding a single static IP. Just turn off the DHCP all but one of them so that your internal networks won't have multiple IP range assigned, or not, if you prefer it.

[five.five-six]

Since the OP appears to be pretty technically fluent,

LOL. I fooled anotherone

BTW that sounds good. I was wondering if I could just connct on NIC in my NVR to the internal switch on the router and set the NIC's IP to one of my public IPs? Or is that lifting my skirt to high in the air?



One problem is that my NVR wants port 80, I guess I could change that port but it is a little involved to do.

[ibanezfoo]

Where to start. I have a NVR that I am attempting to view off site. AT&T provided a westell 7550 DSL modem which is all but impossible to to port forward with so I ordered static IP addresses which do not appear to be supported by this modem. AT&T does not support their router/modem combo and what documentation that I can find on the web is weak at best, mostly a bunch of IT people complaining about what a POS it is


I am at the point where I am ready to put it in "bride mode" and buy my own router that can manage my public IP range. I just don't have any idea what router to buy.

Definitely put it in bridge mode... as to the router, how much do you want to spend? Pretty much any router will handle static IPs and NAT these days. I'm partial to the Netgear stuff for home, Cisco or Juniper for work. Of course you can get something to run DDWRT on but honestly its not stable on every device.

[five.five-six]

I run DD-WRT on my "test router" but I have never implimented a router running it. it sure makes a cheep router flexable. As for cost, I only want to spend a couple hundred bucks.

[Petra]

My vote would be for pulling an old crap-can computer out of a closet and loading either Untangle or pfSense on it. m0n0wall may be another option. Either way, cost = $0 + only a little bit of your time. Assuming your hardware is supported, Untangle is stupid easy to work with and doesn't really require much (if any) learning.

[five.five-six]

My vote would be for pulling an old crap-can computer out of a closet and loading either Untangle or pfSense on it. m0n0wall may be another option. Either way, cost = $0 + only a little bit of your time. Assuming your hardware is supported, Untangle is stupid easy to work with and doesn't really require much (if any) learning.

Can I VM ware it on an existing box or does it need it's own machine?

[Petra]

Can I VM ware it on an existing box or does it need it's own machine?

That's a good question... I've never looked into whether or not that's doable.