G+_Ben Yanke Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 How much overhead does a double NAT add to your outgoing packets? And more importantly, will this overhead affect me much, considering my slow connections? My two modems are actually Frontier internet all-in-one router/modem things, and they currently have NAT on, so they both have DCHP servers running which hand out an address to the main router. Past that, all the clients on the network connect to the main router, which dynamically routes connections toward each modem, depending on load. Each modem has 1.5/0.3 mbps connections, so I don't have much bandwidth. Modem 1 --> Main Router Modem 2 --> Main Router Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Taylor Graham Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I dunno if i'd call it overhead, id call it latency. Packets on the wan side of the router are totally unaware of the NAT. When the packets hit the router, it routes them to their translated addresses. For you to experience latency, you'd have to overload the router. With a wan connection like that, you are most certainly not going to notice. Either way, double NATs are generally bad news. Use vlans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Ben Yanke Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 So you're saying that while double NATs are not a great idea, it's not giving me a speed hit a this time? I'd like to overwork it sometime to get rid of the double NAT, I just want to know the benefit before I do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Taylor Graham Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 After rereading your post.. You have two modems connected to a single router? How does that work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Phil Chung Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Sounds like he has two connections and what he's after is something that will bond the two connections together... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Ben Yanke Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 Yes, basically. The router has two wan ports, and one modem is connected to each port. It's my way of doubling the limited bandwidth and keeping all my family's devices on one LAN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Taylor Graham Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Awesome! The router actually uses the connections concurrently (not failover)? Most modems let you set them up in bridge mode.. Perhaps your modem/router has that function? Whats the make/model of that router? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Ben Reese Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I don't think double NAT would be noticeable under most scenarios - especially if there is only one device connected to the public-facing router. NAT works by the router changing the packet on its way out to mark itself as the sender. Each communication has an sender Address/Port combination and a destination Address/Port combo. The router creates a mapping of the sender port on the public side to your devices address/port on the inside. The increase in latency is from the router changing each packet with the updated Address and Port. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Ben Yanke Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 Yup, Taylor! It uses both connections concurrently it isn't exactly bonded, as it is two discreet modems going out. As I understand it, the load balancing router routes roughly half of the TCP/IP connections out each modem. This means that when downloading a large single file (ie, one connection), you only can get the bandwidth of one modem, but if you are browsing or have multiple users using the LAN concurrently (lots of connections), you effecticely get the combined bandwidth of the modems. I don't know the model of the router, but I really like it, and I'll post the model number when I get home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Ben Yanke Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 The router is a TP-Link TL-R470T+ (http://amzn.to/1FffaY6). From there I have some standard ethernet switches and 3 APs spread around the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Ben Yanke Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 It supports up to 4 wan connections for the purpose of load balancing, failover, or any combination of the two with the four links Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Phil Chung Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Can't you switch off the DHCP in the modems and put them into bridge mode and handle the connections via the router with the two WAN ports? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Ben Reese Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Yeah, I would be surprised if the modem+router didn't have bridge mode as an option. Otherwise, they shouldn't really have a problem keeping up with the 1.5mbps that they have to deal with lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Jason Marsh Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 That's a nice peice of kit you have there. If I had more than 1 ISP available where I live, I'd definitely consider such a setup. Not going to give the same ISP twice the money though, as when the ISP goes down, both links would die. It would seem that double-NAT isn't a major issue for your setup, but you'd probably be better off putting the modems in bridge mode, shutting down all but what's necessary for the modems to run their DSL links, and let that nice router you have run your network. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Ben Yanke Posted April 24, 2015 Author Share Posted April 24, 2015 Jason, a 4g modem could be a nice fail over, if your plan allows you to use add extra lines for a minimal amount, if you want. You can have it set up to only activate certain WAN ports if one or all of the others fails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Jason Marsh Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 I've considered 4G for a customer who can only get 1.5Mb with his DSL provider, and the cable tv provider wants an inordinate amount to bring coax down his street. I'm leaning toward a point-to-point link to a neighbor with sufficient bandwidth. I already have some parabolic grid wifi antennae laying around from previous projects, as well. For a while, I was getting torrents ONLY over the neighbornets :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Ben Reese Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Nice. Stealing neighbor's wifi for your torrents. I've thought of this same solution though for people who can't get better than DSL. Seems like if you could get cable 5 miles away then you could use Ubiquiti point to point access point - that's a lot of points - links to get the faster service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Jason Marsh Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Ignorance is not an excuse, and an open network is an invite for free access. Now that we have a home in the countryside AND adequate bandwidth, I don't piggy-back on neighbornets. I actually helped a few secure theirs, only later to hear from other neighbors they aren't getting the free wifi anymore :) But, yeah, AirMax or similar would be great kit to have. You can never have too many points :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Ben Reese Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 I'm not judging. I'm sure most of us have borrowed the neighbor's Internet a time or two. I've got one neighbor with an unlocked "Netgear" SSID. One day I scanned the wifi and found a "set your password" in its place. I changed it back to "Netgear" for them ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts