Hello,
I have a DSL router/bridge connected to a 4-port & wireless router.
The DSL router was set up basically as a bridge; its IP was 192.168.0.1, and I had the 4-port wireless router set up in the DSL router's DMZ at 192.168.0.2.
I turned off the firewall on the DSL router and then had the firewall, DHCP, and routing done at the 4-port wireless router.
A recent firmware upgrade to the DSL router added an option for 'fullcone nat.' This router is woefully undocumented, but I found this description of fullcone nat on another website:
/// A full cone NAT is one where all requests from the same internal
/// IP address and port are mapped to the same external IP address and port.
/// Furthermore, any external host can send a packet to the internal host,
/// by sending a packet to the mapped external address.
Now this differs from a regular NAT slightly, because a regular NAT requires the internal host to open a port first prior to the NAT accepting packets from an external host. This is why I setup the internal host (the 4-port wireless router) on the DMZ, so I wouldn't have to use portforwarding on both the DSL router & the internal 4-port wireless router.
But the fullcone NAT option looks a lot like the DMZ option for a router, doesn't it? What are the differences? Should I only have one of the two options?
It kind of looks like with my setup a fullcone NAT makes the DMZ unnecessary. The DMZ would be useful if I had multiple devices behind a NAT but wanted one to be the 'default.' But since I just have one device behind my NAT the fullcone NAT option seems to be the better fit.
Any comments / suggestions would be appreciated!
I have a DSL router/bridge connected to a 4-port & wireless router.
The DSL router was set up basically as a bridge; its IP was 192.168.0.1, and I had the 4-port wireless router set up in the DSL router's DMZ at 192.168.0.2.
I turned off the firewall on the DSL router and then had the firewall, DHCP, and routing done at the 4-port wireless router.
A recent firmware upgrade to the DSL router added an option for 'fullcone nat.' This router is woefully undocumented, but I found this description of fullcone nat on another website:
/// A full cone NAT is one where all requests from the same internal
/// IP address and port are mapped to the same external IP address and port.
/// Furthermore, any external host can send a packet to the internal host,
/// by sending a packet to the mapped external address.
Now this differs from a regular NAT slightly, because a regular NAT requires the internal host to open a port first prior to the NAT accepting packets from an external host. This is why I setup the internal host (the 4-port wireless router) on the DMZ, so I wouldn't have to use portforwarding on both the DSL router & the internal 4-port wireless router.
But the fullcone NAT option looks a lot like the DMZ option for a router, doesn't it? What are the differences? Should I only have one of the two options?
It kind of looks like with my setup a fullcone NAT makes the DMZ unnecessary. The DMZ would be useful if I had multiple devices behind a NAT but wanted one to be the 'default.' But since I just have one device behind my NAT the fullcone NAT option seems to be the better fit.
Any comments / suggestions would be appreciated!