Rogers Together with Shaw update modem CB6 to CB7 - 2 ips?

[ksihota]

We are updating to a higher plan (through Rogers?) and they are sending  a replacement modem. They are sending a new modem (upgrading?) our CB6 to a CB7 (not sure why they are not giving us a CB8.)

I have the CB6 set to bridge mode in order to obtain 2 IP addresses from Shaw. I just wanted to check to make sure that the CB7 will also allow me to obtain the 2 IP addresses. I assume that I will have to set the CB7 modem to Bridge mode as well, or will it allow me to get the two IPS without having to do this?

Also, the CB6 has not allowed me to communicate directly between the two IPs (does not allow hairpin NAT?) I have to access my server on the 2nd IP by using a VPN. Does anyone know if the CB7 will allow the two IPS to communicate with each other directly.

Thanks for any insights into this.

[mdk]

@ksihota -- the "Ignite WiFi Gateway (Gen 3) (XB8)" seems to be reserved for customers on the "1.5 Gig" Fibre+ plan. Anything slower gets you the XB7.

Both the XB7 & XB8 are very much quieter than the XB6.  🙂

My XB7 has been provisioned for two IP-addresses, without the need for any bridging. One IP-address is absorbed by the XB7, to support NAT for wired/wireless devices.

If you have bridged the XB6, you are not using its NAT capability.

[ksihota]

@mdk Thanks for the quick reply.

We are switching up to the 1.5 Gig Ignite plan so I am not sure why they wouldn't be sending us the XB8.

I had to Bridge the XB6 in order to obtain the 2nd IP address. I didn't have to do that on the old Hitron but we had a lower plan then. At the time they sent us the XB6 we had upgraded to the 600 I believe. Whatever it was it was the highest at that time. They came out with a 1.0 gig plan after that which we didn't upgrade to since we were already tied to the other plan.

I posted about the connection problem 'talking' to the server (on the other Shaw IP) quite some time ago and it was suggested that the problem was that the modem was not able to do whatever it had to do to allow the two IP ranges talk to each other. Some users called it a NAT hairpin turn? I believe you were in that same conversation at the time. The Hitron did not have the same issue. As  a result I just ended up using a VPN to connect to my server when I am at home. Since then I have read other reports of the same issue on both Shaw and Rogers using that same modem. I was just hoping it was fixed. I am positive that at certain times (since I have had the XB6)  it has worked so I expect it has something to do with firmware updates.

My main concern is accessing the 2 IP addresses on the XB7. Did you have to do anything special to get access to the 2nd IP or will it just get delivered to one of the 4 ethernet ports on the modem when I set it up? Since there are 4 ports on the back for internet access, how do you know which ports are used to deliver the 2 IPs? Or are you saying that the modem  provides one IP to the wireless DHCP and the other can be used to connect to my own router? I am NOT wanting my server to have the same public (Shaw) IP as my home network. I would prefer to keep those two as separate as possible.

Currently I have my server (with its own domain) using one of the Shaw's public IPs and the other IP is used by my router which is connected to a smart switch which is delivering 4 VLANs. Those are split over 7 ethernet ports. Currently I have a single AP that provides the SSIDs for each of the VLANS. I have several wired devices (on different VLANS) connected to the other ports on the switch. I am not using the CB6s Wifi so my router/switch/AP is delivering ips from 4 different ranges.

I'm just hoping that this "upgrade" is not going to limit what I already have in place or force me to have to reconfigure my whole setup.

[mdk]

@ksihota -- can the the upgrade to 1.5 be completed without switching to the XB8 ?

With 2 IP-addresses, the unbridged cable-modem takes one to do NAT for all your wired/wireless devices, while the 2nd IP-address should "pass-through" to one LAN port. A bridged cable-modem does not do WiFi, but 2 of the LAN ports get the 2 "public" IP-addresses. 

[ksihota]

@mdk I guess I will have to pose the XB8 question to Shaw and see what they say. I am trusting that they know what they are doing and are sending me the appropriate modem.

Are the 3 remaining ethernet ports supplying dhcp addresses that match the ip addresses delivered wirelessly?

I don't see anything that indicates that the modem is capable of providing more than one SSID or capable of providing more than a single IP address pool. Would you say this is true?

It sounds like the public IP#1 is used to provide the ip pool to the wireless and ports 1,2,3  and port 4 is separate and would be public IP#2?

If that is the case I could probably manage the system using that setup. Port 4 could go to my server with public IP#2 and I could try using one of the internal ips (on the 3 other ethernet ports) to connect to my router/switch/EAP setup. I haven't tried it this way but my guess is that it would work. Guess I will have to wait till the device is delivered and try it out.

BTW do you know how I can edit a post so I can correct the errors where I typed CB instead of XB?

[mdk]

@ksihota wrote:

1. Are the 3 remaining ethernet ports supplying dhcp addresses that match the ip addresses delivered wirelessly?

The DHCP-server inside the cable-modem has just one "pool" of IP-addresses -- first-come (wired or wirelss) first-serve.

2. I don't see anything that indicates that the modem is capable of providing more than one SSID

If the cable-modem is not bridged, then you may separate the 2.4 Ghz WiFi band from the 5 Ghz band, giving different SSIDs for each.  This accommodates older devices that must connect to 2.4, instead of failing to connect to 5 Ghz.

3. or capable of providing more than a single IP address pool. Would you say this is true?

Yes, for all the cable-modems that I have had, ever since the very first one that Shaw offered. Actually, the first cable-modem was just a modulator/demodulator ("modem") -- it was not also a router.  It had only one Ethernet socket, and no WiFi.  Thus, only one computer could be connected, and that device received a "public" IP-address on Shaw's network -- exposing it to being "hacked", unless the computer's firewall was blocking unsolicited incoming packets. Almost no user enabled the firewall within Windows 2000 -- making it very vulnerable. Windows XP enabled the firewall, by default.

4. do you know how I can edit a post

For a short time after you post something, you can click the "circle" way over to the right of your nickname, to activate the "edit" option.