Need help with a new ISP configuration

[bamacre]

I have the Time Warner Work@Home service, and originally had a single static IP address. They gave me a Cable Modem/Router, which was hooked up to my Linksys BEFSR41 which was home to my single static IP, and dished out 192.1's to my home computers.

Now, I have switched over to a new config, in which I supposedly have now 5 public dynamic IP addresses. The cable modem/router was replaced with a single cable modem, which is now hooked up to my Linksys BEFSR41.

The problem is my home computers all still gave 192.1's instead of public IP's, and this is NOT what I wanted.

I assume I need to change the configuration of the Linksys router, but I have no freakin' idea what I need to do. I am pretty much an idiot when it comes to networking on this level. My goal is to just have my 4 home computers all with real, public IP's, not 192.1's. Can anyone help?

 

[JackMDS]

Yeah, it is psychologically hard to forgo the word free.

However unless you have a specific technological reason to use few public IPs let go.

In order to config your computers with the public IP you have to forgo the Router and you would end up with a Bizarre concoction of few computers that are Not really networked, coz they would be on public IP.

:sun:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: JackMDS
Yeah, it is psychologically hard to forgo the word free.

However unless you have a specific technological reason to use few public IPs let go.

In order to config your computers with the public IP you have to forgo the Router and you would end up with a Bizarre concoction of few computers that are Not really networked, coz they would be on public IP.

:sun:

I do have a bizarre reason for wanting real IP's on all 4 computers, and in fact it's quite important. Otherwise, I wouldn't have changed over to this type of config.

 

[JackMDS]

Put a simple switch on the Modem and each computer would get its own Public IP.

:sun:

 

[spidey07]

well then you'll need a firewall that can support it. You'll still be doing network address translation you'll just be doing static translations - a single internal IP is mapped to a single external IP.

checkpoint, cisco, netscreen are all good ones. I'm sure could build some sort of linux box but I prefer the hardware firewall approach.

 

[bamacre]

So, I will need to dump my Linksys router for a switch?

 

[spidey07]

the switch could work, but you're computers would be wide open on the internet and you'll have to be very dilligent about security. you may even run into some performance problems depending on what the addresses are - traffic going to your ISP and back even if it should have stayed local on your network.

all depends on how your ISP provides your addresses. If they gave you a range of addresses with a subnet mask then you should be good.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: spidey07
the switch could work, but you're computers would be wide open on the internet and you'll have to be very dilligent about security. you may even run into some performance problems depending on what the addresses are - traffic going to your ISP and back even if it should have stayed local on your network.

all depends on how your ISP provides your addresses. If they gave you a range of addresses with a subnet mask then you should be good.

Thanks. I'm going to cal my ISP and see exactly what they gave me, and what I need to do to get this setup the way I need it to be. I don't think the guy that came by today gave me the correct info, or I am missing something.

 

[kevnich2]

I, again, agree with spidey on this one. Forget the switch approach and get a business class firewall that will support public to private NAT translations. This way you could program in your public IP's to a specific private address. The problem that I see is that these public addresses aren't static, which means they will change and not stay the same over time. If you'll be using these for anything important, you'll need static IP's.

 

[spidey07]

yeah, I just re-read the dynamic aspect of it.

could prove to be a challenge/difficulty. It would be much cleaner/straight forward if they were static. If they are dynamic then just the switch approach would work with some caveats. But I'd be leary of any box being wide open like that, you'd really have to go through the routines to secure it.

 

[JackMDS]

Originally posted by: bamacreI do have a bizarre reason for wanting real IP's on all 4 computers, and in fact it's quite important. Otherwise, I wouldn't have changed over to this type of config.

May be if you would explain the need it would easier to derive the correct solution.

:sun:

 

[kevnich2]

Originally posted by: JackMDS

Originally posted by: bamacreI do have a bizarre reason for wanting real IP's on all 4 computers, and in fact it's quite important. Otherwise, I wouldn't have changed over to this type of config.

May be if you would explain the need it would easier to derive the correct solution.

:sun:

Yes, how about you tell us what you plan on using these for. There are alot of good networking people who can probably tell you the best & most secure way of accomplishing what you are looking for

 

[bamacre]

Ok, sure, what the hell.

A certain online retailer has a live inventory of goods which is updated throughout the day. I buy and resell these goods. I run a script that hits that inventory, searching for certain models at certain price points. When it hits something I am looking for, it snags that good and adds it to my cart before anyone else can. However, that retailer has implemented a limit of one hit per roughly every 2.5 seconds, and that block is by IP address. Thus, if I have 5 systems each with it's own IP, I can hit their inventory, theoretically, 5 times faster, by running my script on 5 systems instead of just one.