Joining networks with same subnet 2

[thebopps]

We have an application in which we are going to link a few customers using microwave links, they all have the same subnet Class C 192.168.1.X, 255.255.255.0. They also all have devices with the same ip address. We need to link them together so we can network their phone systems together. What would be the best way to do this? We were thinking about using a DD-WRT router at each location and just use port forwarding. Then we arrive at the issue of not being able to connect to the WAN ip addresses of the other routers. Can we just run a little DNS server on the WAN sides of the routers?

 

[Amiel]

Now THIS is a complex question. I'm going to follow this one for sure.

But so as to completely waste everyone’s time. I have a couple of questions that might serve to stimulate some responses.

The 'microwave' is reduced to Ethernet, and then further to most likely IP at either end of the connection. What kind of hardware would be handling that exactly?

And then. The WRT does NAT (declaratory). So you would need a static (public ?) IP address for each WRT. And so the host addresses don’t really matter, unless we use port forwarding, in which case we are already chasing our tail with this.

DNS? How about some DHCP first?

Are you starting your own utility company? I think that is a great idea!


Amiel Summers

 

[thebopps]

We are installing an interoperability link for multiple emergency service departments. And yes, we will need to do some port forwarding.

 

[brianinms]

The best way to accomplish the task is to have one of the organizations re ip address their network.

 

[thebopps]

Unfortunately, we are talking about 10 organizations, so that isn't realistic.

 

[technome]

NAT Routing....
"Two Networks using the same Address space"

http://www.hasenstein.com/linux-ip-nat/diplom/node7.html#SECTION00071400000000000000

but agree with others, re-ip.

Another issue, if you have delays as to the microwave link, your program will need to be aware of it, and be able to handle it.

........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm

 

[IPfreeley]

Why is changing IP addresses not realistic? How many clients are we looking at here. I figure we have a server at each of the 10 entities, and lets assume there's 10 clients. Have a go at this:

Site A:
WAN Router/DGateway:192.168.0.1
Microwave Link Device:192.168.0.13
Site A Server?:192.168.0.2
Site A DHCP Range:3-12

Site B:

WAN Router/DGateway:192.168.0.14
Microwave Link Device:192.168.0.26
Site A Server?:192.168.0.15
Site A DHCP Range:16-25

This is only a suggestion based on falsified variables, but it could work as long as you know the exact number of clients per site (leave a little head room). If there are no servers with static ip's assigned then throw this out and go with a class B ip table. It makes troubleshooting and device location so much easier.

 

[IPfreeley]

You could also place the WRT ahead of the current router, put the phone system on this network, and set the current router to connect to wan thru the WRT, leaving each site as is, just rapping it in your MAN.

SITE A SITE B SITE C
______________________________________________

WAN ---------------WAN --------------WAN
WRT WRT WRT
Wireless Link______Wireless Link_____Wireless Link
Phone System Phone System Phone System
LAN Router Lan Router Lan Router

 

[bnorton916]

Can you just use NAT to translate the 192.168.1.x to 192.168.101.x in a 1-to-1 ratio?

Then change the 101 number for each separate subnet?

Does this make sense? Or am I misunderstanding the question?

 

[Amiel]

Many months have gone by. Seems the WRT hardware mentioned is fundamentally a Linux project. The hardware is essentially a Linux computer with 8p8c jacks on the side and an antenna sticking out on the end.

It's just a Linux machine. As such, anything that can be done with networking can be done with this hardware (software).

Supports L2 tunneling, TLS, I don't see dot1q but I'm sure it's there somewhere (Google 'Linux vlans').

So the challenge is in determining to what extent you choose to accommodate the existing logical design (the addresses); and the time and effort it may take to configure the hardware (software) to accomplish the accommodation.

Off the top a point-to-point configuration comes to mind. Perhaps partitioned into vans, thus achieving a logical mesh topology.

Remember you'll end up configuring iptables. So again return to the decision of whether it is worth the time. It may be better to just run a Linux or BSD box for the connectivity period, and plug in a wireless device or two somewhere on the network(s). Makes more sense.

Committing to the specific hardware mentioned; you may end up with the sense that you're building 'a ship in a bottle' kind of thing.

That's my take on this. Hope things work out.

http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Point-to-Point_PPTP_Tunneling_with_two_DD-WRT

Amiel Summers

 

[dialtonebone]

I'm with bnorton... Why don't you try using NAT?

You can translate each of these remote networks in a router.