RV082 One-to-One NAT > 3 devices

[beng00002]

Looking for some help/ideas with One-to-One NAT on more than three devices. These devices are VoIP units and are on a secure, isolated network with just the VoIP units on the network and the network does not carry any other traffic, so firewall and other security measures are turned off/scaled back to maximize throughput.

Created 6 public IP 172.0.x.x to private IP 192.168.1.x. address translations

Three of the six devices work fine and respond normally to troubleshooting techniques (ping, etc). The rest do not work, do not respond to anything, gives host not found error, no response to pings. All units are set up the same way. Each entry was orignally created individually, and then deleted and created as a group to see if that solved the problem.

According to Cisco tech support, more than three devices should not be a problem. I went back and checked all my work and re-entered the devices with no luck. Is this a bug?

If this router cannot perform this function, does anyone have any suggestions for a reasonbly priced router that can?

Thank you.

[SamirD]

What is the subnet mask of your 192 subnet?  Have you tried changing this to limit the number of IPs and see if it makes a difference? 

Huntsville's Premiere Car and Bike e-magazine: www.huntsvillecarscene.com

[beng00002]

Please disregard your efforts on this problem, appears to have been an an error in the production system configuration. Not the subnet mask, but checking that led us to an error that was made in some of the device configurations. There are several different sites to check, but we anticipate it will be the same problem at all sites. Thank you for your help.

[SamirD]

Glad my suggestion led to you the source.   Definitely let us know what the root cause was and the solution.

Huntsville's Premiere Car and Bike e-magazine: www.huntsvillecarscene.com

[beng00002]

The root cause was a field tech having a bad day. The same tech that had set up the other 3 working devices also set up the three new ones at each site, but completed the configuration incorrectly by replacing the correct IP addresses with the ones for a parallel/isolated subnet for regular computer use. The router was NATing properly, it just couldn't find the actual endpoint devices because they were configured for the wrong subnet. So, its WAS a subnet issue, just not the subnet mask.

Surprisingly, it wasn't me this time. He was very embarrassed.

Thanks!

[SamirD]

Thank you for the followup post!  Hopefully someone else that makes the same mistake can catch it quicker thanks to this thread.:)

Huntsville's Premiere Car and Bike e-magazine: www.huntsvillecarscene.com