New NAT definitions don't appear to be working

Question

N6 server running BM3.7. Been using pcAnywhere on 5 PCs in the
organization for years. Now ISP has allotted more external fixed IP
addresses and I am trying to set up a new PC to use one of the new
addresses. I added the new addresses and their proper translations to
the NAT definition (via INETCFG) and verified that the new
translations look just like the original 5 in TCPIP.CFG. The 5631 and
5632 filter exceptions are set to all addresses. I have tested and
confirmed that I can use the new IP address to connect to the 5631
port of a PC on the public side of the BM server but not on the
private side.
Can anyone suggest a setting I might have missed to open these new
addresses through BorderMgr? Possibly a subnet mask somewhere that
would limit the number of static IPs available? At a loss - any help
appreciated!

Answer 1

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:50:32 GMT, Caterina Luppi <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Thomas,
>
>> N6 server running BM3.7. Been using pcAnywhere on 5 PCs in the
>> organization for years. Now ISP has allotted more external fixed IP
>> addresses and I am trying to set up a new PC to use one of the new
>> addresses. I added the new addresses and their proper translations to
>> the NAT definition (via INETCFG) and verified that the new
>> translations look just like the original 5 in TCPIP.CFG. The 5631 and
>> 5632 filter exceptions are set to all addresses. I have tested and
>> confirmed that I can use the new IP address to connect to the 5631
>> port of a PC on the public side of the BM server but not on the
>> private side.
>
>devices that are static nat-ed aren't accessible from the private side
>when using the "public" IP address. You'll have to use the private IP
>address from your LAN.
Maybe I didn't explain something properly above but this is a working
configuration for 5 addresses. I'm just trying to extend the series
of addresses available for PCs running pcAnywhere.
>
>> Can anyone suggest a setting I might have missed to open these new
>> addresses through BorderMgr? Possibly a subnet mask somewhere that
>> would limit the number of static IPs available? At a loss - any help
>> appreciated!
>
>Well, we'll be able to tell you that if you provide us with the old and
>new IP addresses and masks. for your privacy, just mask the THIRD octect
>of the addresses (ex. 123.123.xxx.123/255.255.255.0)
Old (working) addresses being NATed are
192.168.xxx.2 >> to >> 192.168.yyy.2
192.168.xxx.10 >> to >> 192.168.yyy.10
192.168.xxx.11 >> to >> 192.168.yyy.11
192.168.xxx.12 >> to >> 192.168.yyy.12
192.168.xxx.13 >> to >> 192.168.yyy.13
The series now continues with forth octet values of 14 thru 19.
To explain the internal type addresses on the public side of the
server - these are coming from a DSL router that has already made a
translation from the external addresses. I have placed a PC directly
on the router and confirmed that the external addresses are working
and being translated properly.