To NAT or not to NAT

[ttif3120]

I have CCTV system with 12 Axis HD IP cameras and an HP server running the CCTV recording application. All the cameras have 192.168 static LAN addresses and so has the server. However, to enable remote access to the server, I have to allocate the server one of my 13 Public addresses. As soon as I do this and re-start the server the BH3 crashes after about 10 minutes. It loses synch or just locks up. The only assumption I can make is the BH3 can’t handle the routing of all the HD video feeds from the cameras as all the feeds have to be routed from one subnet (192.168.x.x) to the public address (81.`142.x.x) of the server. The only solution to this problem is to keep the server with a 192.168.x.x address and NAT the designated public address to this one. But, the BT BH3 doesn’t do NAT.

My question is, can I replace my BT BH3 with a router that does do NAT (say a Draytek)? I note that BT describe the static IP addresses as no-NAT,  does this mean they can’t be NAT’d  or is it just a design feature of the BH 3?

Tony

[windymiller123]

We do far more than that with Draytek routers, and a single static IP address.  Just use different ports to forward across the routers to the desired devices (including IP cameras)

If a router can't do NAT, then its not up to much use for business.

[ttif3120]

I agree. The fact that BT business hubs do not do NAT is in my opinion a business limitation. I could do port forwarding as you suggest but I'm already forwading port 80 for another application.

So that i get value of money out of this post....  If I replace my Business hub 3 with a Draytek, do I need to keep the white Modem or can a Draytek handle the carrier direct from the FttC line?

[Plumly]

depends on the type of Draytek, it has to be VDSL Capable to work with FTTc