How to communicate with devices that have the same IP address
I have a situation where I need to communicate via telnet to multiple devices that have the same IP address. The context is that I am writing a "final test" of devices in a manufacturing facility. These devices go out to the customer with some default IP address and I would like to NOT change this, even temporarily, for this final test.
I'd like to know if/how this is possible to do with one host machine and preferably one router or managed-switch.
I am not super familiar with managed switches or routers. However, I know that routers support NAT (network address translation) and I know that some routers are very configurable. So would it be possible to have a setup like the following:
A bunch of devices plugged into the ports of a router, each with the same IP address.
Configuration of NAT on the router to map each of those physical ports to a unique IP on the LAN.
The application that interacts with the devices telnets to the unique LAN IP's.
If this is possible then what would be the right vocabulary to describe a router with those features?
networking router ethernet nat switch
asked Feb 25 '14 at 11:21
AngeloAngelo
40041223
add a comment |
I have a situation where I need to communicate via telnet to multiple devices that have the same IP address. The context is that I am writing a "final test" of devices in a manufacturing facility. These devices go out to the customer with some default IP address and I would like to NOT change this, even temporarily, for this final test.
I'd like to know if/how this is possible to do with one host machine and preferably one router or managed-switch.
I am not super familiar with managed switches or routers. However, I know that routers support NAT (network address translation) and I know that some routers are very configurable. So would it be possible to have a setup like the following:
A bunch of devices plugged into the ports of a router, each with the same IP address.
Configuration of NAT on the router to map each of those physical ports to a unique IP on the LAN.
The application that interacts with the devices telnets to the unique LAN IP's.
If this is possible then what would be the right vocabulary to describe a router with those features?
networking router ethernet nat switch
asked Feb 25 '14 at 11:21
AngeloAngelo
40041223
3
You can't; you can do it one at a time but if multiple devices have the same address you have no control over which device will receive the packet
– Ramhound
Feb 25 '14 at 11:24
@Ramhound, If I were to do it one at a time, does there exist a switch that would allow me to programmatically "disable" specific physical ports?
– Angelo
Feb 25 '14 at 11:27
@Angelo if you mean disabling ports at the switch, then yes, but you need managed switch then. It costs more than a bunch of NICs though.
– LogicDaemon
Feb 25 '14 at 20:24
@LogicDaemon, thanks, I've modified my question to try to make my problem a little more clear. Disabling ports, on second thought, would be too much of an obstacle if I can get it work some other way.
– Angelo
Feb 25 '14 at 22:13
The only way would be static APR address. However, Telnet is a TCP/IP application. So setting a device's or devices' MAC to a "fake" IP on a managing system via static APR will not work.
– SgtOJ
Feb 26 '14 at 0:01
add a comment |
I have a situation where I need to communicate via telnet to multiple devices that have the same IP address. The context is that I am writing a "final test" of devices in a manufacturing facility. These devices go out to the customer with some default IP address and I would like to NOT change this, even temporarily, for this final test.
I'd like to know if/how this is possible to do with one host machine and preferably one router or managed-switch.
I am not super familiar with managed switches or routers. However, I know that routers support NAT (network address translation) and I know that some routers are very configurable. So would it be possible to have a setup like the following:
A bunch of devices plugged into the ports of a router, each with the same IP address.
Configuration of NAT on the router to map each of those physical ports to a unique IP on the LAN.
The application that interacts with the devices telnets to the unique LAN IP's.
If this is possible then what would be the right vocabulary to describe a router with those features?
networking router ethernet nat switch
asked Feb 25 '14 at 11:21
AngeloAngelo
40041223
I have a situation where I need to communicate via telnet to multiple devices that have the same IP address. The context is that I am writing a "final test" of devices in a manufacturing facility. These devices go out to the customer with some default IP address and I would like to NOT change this, even temporarily, for this final test.
I'd like to know if/how this is possible to do with one host machine and preferably one router or managed-switch.
I am not super familiar with managed switches or routers. However, I know that routers support NAT (network address translation) and I know that some routers are very configurable. So would it be possible to have a setup like the following:
A bunch of devices plugged into the ports of a router, each with the same IP address.
Configuration of NAT on the router to map each of those physical ports to a unique IP on the LAN.
The application that interacts with the devices telnets to the unique LAN IP's.
If this is possible then what would be the right vocabulary to describe a router with those features?
networking router ethernet nat switch
networking router ethernet nat switch
asked Feb 25 '14 at 11:21
AngeloAngelo
40041223
asked Feb 25 '14 at 11:21
AngeloAngelo
40041223
edited Feb 25 '14 at 22:21
Angelo
asked Feb 25 '14 at 11:21
AngeloAngelo
40041223
asked Feb 25 '14 at 11:21
AngeloAngelo
40041223
asked Feb 25 '14 at 11:21
AngeloAngelo
40041223
40041223
3
You can't; you can do it one at a time but if multiple devices have the same address you have no control over which device will receive the packet
– Ramhound
Feb 25 '14 at 11:24
@Ramhound, If I were to do it one at a time, does there exist a switch that would allow me to programmatically "disable" specific physical ports?
– Angelo
Feb 25 '14 at 11:27
@Angelo if you mean disabling ports at the switch, then yes, but you need managed switch then. It costs more than a bunch of NICs though.
– LogicDaemon
Feb 25 '14 at 20:24
@LogicDaemon, thanks, I've modified my question to try to make my problem a little more clear. Disabling ports, on second thought, would be too much of an obstacle if I can get it work some other way.
– Angelo
Feb 25 '14 at 22:13
The only way would be static APR address. However, Telnet is a TCP/IP application. So setting a device's or devices' MAC to a "fake" IP on a managing system via static APR will not work.
– SgtOJ
Feb 26 '14 at 0:01
add a comment |
3
You can't; you can do it one at a time but if multiple devices have the same address you have no control over which device will receive the packet
– Ramhound
Feb 25 '14 at 11:24
@Ramhound, If I were to do it one at a time, does there exist a switch that would allow me to programmatically "disable" specific physical ports?
– Angelo
Feb 25 '14 at 11:27
@Angelo if you mean disabling ports at the switch, then yes, but you need managed switch then. It costs more than a bunch of NICs though.
– LogicDaemon
Feb 25 '14 at 20:24
@LogicDaemon, thanks, I've modified my question to try to make my problem a little more clear. Disabling ports, on second thought, would be too much of an obstacle if I can get it work some other way.
– Angelo
Feb 25 '14 at 22:13
The only way would be static APR address. However, Telnet is a TCP/IP application. So setting a device's or devices' MAC to a "fake" IP on a managing system via static APR will not work.
– SgtOJ
Feb 26 '14 at 0:01
3
3
You can't; you can do it one at a time but if multiple devices have the same address you have no control over which device will receive the packet
– Ramhound
Feb 25 '14 at 11:24
You can't; you can do it one at a time but if multiple devices have the same address you have no control over which device will receive the packet
– Ramhound
Feb 25 '14 at 11:24
@Ramhound, If I were to do it one at a time, does there exist a switch that would allow me to programmatically "disable" specific physical ports?
– Angelo
Feb 25 '14 at 11:27
@Ramhound, If I were to do it one at a time, does there exist a switch that would allow me to programmatically "disable" specific physical ports?
– Angelo
Feb 25 '14 at 11:27
@Angelo if you mean disabling ports at the switch, then yes, but you need managed switch then. It costs more than a bunch of NICs though.
– LogicDaemon
Feb 25 '14 at 20:24
@Angelo if you mean disabling ports at the switch, then yes, but you need managed switch then. It costs more than a bunch of NICs though.
– LogicDaemon
Feb 25 '14 at 20:24
@LogicDaemon, thanks, I've modified my question to try to make my problem a little more clear. Disabling ports, on second thought, would be too much of an obstacle if I can get it work some other way.
– Angelo
Feb 25 '14 at 22:13
@LogicDaemon, thanks, I've modified my question to try to make my problem a little more clear. Disabling ports, on second thought, would be too much of an obstacle if I can get it work some other way.
– Angelo
Feb 25 '14 at 22:13
The only way would be static APR address. However, Telnet is a TCP/IP application. So setting a device's or devices' MAC to a "fake" IP on a managing system via static APR will not work.
– SgtOJ
Feb 26 '14 at 0:01
The only way would be static APR address. However, Telnet is a TCP/IP application. So setting a device's or devices' MAC to a "fake" IP on a managing system via static APR will not work.
– SgtOJ
Feb 26 '14 at 0:01
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
You could do this with a multiport router that supports NAT but it would take alot of time to configure properly and a router with alot of ports gets expensive.
You could put each port in the switch in a different vlan and then add virtual vlan interfaces on the router. Then you could ping each device from the router specifying the virtual vlan interface as the source. Still alot of work.
answered Feb 27 '14 at 2:07
user3123429user3123429
1511
Thanks, that sounds promising, I will look into it and then accept your answer. Some amount of configuration work and expense is not a problem. In my application that would be preferable to what is done now-- manually swapping ethernet cables. Are you suggesting two separate solutions?
– Angelo
Feb 27 '14 at 2:28
Actually not so much work if you enable VLAN on the port to the host from the switch, configure all other ports as untagged, and add VLAN devices on the host side (easy to do in e.g. Linux) and add a fewiptablesrules.
– dirkt
Sep 24 '17 at 13:35
add a comment |
The same IP address can't be used on the same network. It will be flash the IP conflict message for each device where you configure the conflicted IP address
edited May 26 '14 at 9:33
Journeyman Geek♦
112k43216367
answered May 26 '14 at 7:38
user326660user326660
211
add a comment |
If you weren't set on the 'one router' requirement, several small SOHO-grade routers could be configured all with the same LAN-side settings, to which you'd attach your equipment to be tested, one to each router. The WAN side could then be addressed either on its own private network, or your office LAN's network. Port forwarding could be easily set up on each small router, that if addressed in a mnemonic fashion, you would access device #1 by telnetting to A.B.C.101; device #2 A.B.C.102, ... DNS could even be set up to further simplify the testing environment.
Each small router would only have to be configured once. Each device to be tested can be left connected for as long as required, and no devices need have their configuration changed throughout the test, ensuring that the test environment is stable, and minimal time is spent debugging network issues.
answered May 26 '14 at 11:34
Nevin WilliamsNevin Williams
3,3351129
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f721354%2fhow-to-communicate-with-devices-that-have-the-same-ip-address%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You could do this with a multiport router that supports NAT but it would take alot of time to configure properly and a router with alot of ports gets expensive.
You could put each port in the switch in a different vlan and then add virtual vlan interfaces on the router. Then you could ping each device from the router specifying the virtual vlan interface as the source. Still alot of work.
answered Feb 27 '14 at 2:07
user3123429user3123429
1511
Thanks, that sounds promising, I will look into it and then accept your answer. Some amount of configuration work and expense is not a problem. In my application that would be preferable to what is done now-- manually swapping ethernet cables. Are you suggesting two separate solutions?
– Angelo
Feb 27 '14 at 2:28
Actually not so much work if you enable VLAN on the port to the host from the switch, configure all other ports as untagged, and add VLAN devices on the host side (easy to do in e.g. Linux) and add a fewiptablesrules.
– dirkt
Sep 24 '17 at 13:35
add a comment |
You could do this with a multiport router that supports NAT but it would take alot of time to configure properly and a router with alot of ports gets expensive.
You could put each port in the switch in a different vlan and then add virtual vlan interfaces on the router. Then you could ping each device from the router specifying the virtual vlan interface as the source. Still alot of work.
answered Feb 27 '14 at 2:07
user3123429user3123429
1511
Thanks, that sounds promising, I will look into it and then accept your answer. Some amount of configuration work and expense is not a problem. In my application that would be preferable to what is done now-- manually swapping ethernet cables. Are you suggesting two separate solutions?
– Angelo
Feb 27 '14 at 2:28
Actually not so much work if you enable VLAN on the port to the host from the switch, configure all other ports as untagged, and add VLAN devices on the host side (easy to do in e.g. Linux) and add a fewiptablesrules.
– dirkt
Sep 24 '17 at 13:35
add a comment |
You could do this with a multiport router that supports NAT but it would take alot of time to configure properly and a router with alot of ports gets expensive.
You could put each port in the switch in a different vlan and then add virtual vlan interfaces on the router. Then you could ping each device from the router specifying the virtual vlan interface as the source. Still alot of work.
answered Feb 27 '14 at 2:07
user3123429user3123429
1511
You could do this with a multiport router that supports NAT but it would take alot of time to configure properly and a router with alot of ports gets expensive.
You could put each port in the switch in a different vlan and then add virtual vlan interfaces on the router. Then you could ping each device from the router specifying the virtual vlan interface as the source. Still alot of work.
answered Feb 27 '14 at 2:07
user3123429user3123429
1511
answered Feb 27 '14 at 2:07
user3123429user3123429
1511
answered Feb 27 '14 at 2:07
user3123429user3123429
1511
answered Feb 27 '14 at 2:07
user3123429user3123429
1511
1511
Thanks, that sounds promising, I will look into it and then accept your answer. Some amount of configuration work and expense is not a problem. In my application that would be preferable to what is done now-- manually swapping ethernet cables. Are you suggesting two separate solutions?
– Angelo
Feb 27 '14 at 2:28
Actually not so much work if you enable VLAN on the port to the host from the switch, configure all other ports as untagged, and add VLAN devices on the host side (easy to do in e.g. Linux) and add a fewiptablesrules.
– dirkt
Sep 24 '17 at 13:35
add a comment |
Thanks, that sounds promising, I will look into it and then accept your answer. Some amount of configuration work and expense is not a problem. In my application that would be preferable to what is done now-- manually swapping ethernet cables. Are you suggesting two separate solutions?
– Angelo
Feb 27 '14 at 2:28
Actually not so much work if you enable VLAN on the port to the host from the switch, configure all other ports as untagged, and add VLAN devices on the host side (easy to do in e.g. Linux) and add a fewiptablesrules.
– dirkt
Sep 24 '17 at 13:35
Thanks, that sounds promising, I will look into it and then accept your answer. Some amount of configuration work and expense is not a problem. In my application that would be preferable to what is done now-- manually swapping ethernet cables. Are you suggesting two separate solutions?
– Angelo
Feb 27 '14 at 2:28
Thanks, that sounds promising, I will look into it and then accept your answer. Some amount of configuration work and expense is not a problem. In my application that would be preferable to what is done now-- manually swapping ethernet cables. Are you suggesting two separate solutions?
– Angelo
Feb 27 '14 at 2:28
Actually not so much work if you enable VLAN on the port to the host from the switch, configure all other ports as untagged, and add VLAN devices on the host side (easy to do in e.g. Linux) and add a few
iptables rules.– dirkt
Sep 24 '17 at 13:35
Actually not so much work if you enable VLAN on the port to the host from the switch, configure all other ports as untagged, and add VLAN devices on the host side (easy to do in e.g. Linux) and add a few
iptables rules.– dirkt
Sep 24 '17 at 13:35
add a comment |
The same IP address can't be used on the same network. It will be flash the IP conflict message for each device where you configure the conflicted IP address
edited May 26 '14 at 9:33
Journeyman Geek♦
112k43216367
answered May 26 '14 at 7:38
user326660user326660
211
add a comment |
The same IP address can't be used on the same network. It will be flash the IP conflict message for each device where you configure the conflicted IP address
edited May 26 '14 at 9:33
Journeyman Geek♦
112k43216367
answered May 26 '14 at 7:38
user326660user326660
211
add a comment |
The same IP address can't be used on the same network. It will be flash the IP conflict message for each device where you configure the conflicted IP address
edited May 26 '14 at 9:33
Journeyman Geek♦
112k43216367
answered May 26 '14 at 7:38
user326660user326660
211
The same IP address can't be used on the same network. It will be flash the IP conflict message for each device where you configure the conflicted IP address
edited May 26 '14 at 9:33
Journeyman Geek♦
112k43216367
answered May 26 '14 at 7:38
user326660user326660
211
edited May 26 '14 at 9:33
Journeyman Geek♦
112k43216367
edited May 26 '14 at 9:33
Journeyman Geek♦
112k43216367
edited May 26 '14 at 9:33
Journeyman Geek♦
112k43216367
112k43216367
answered May 26 '14 at 7:38
user326660user326660
211
answered May 26 '14 at 7:38
user326660user326660
211
answered May 26 '14 at 7:38
user326660user326660
211
211
add a comment |
add a comment |
If you weren't set on the 'one router' requirement, several small SOHO-grade routers could be configured all with the same LAN-side settings, to which you'd attach your equipment to be tested, one to each router. The WAN side could then be addressed either on its own private network, or your office LAN's network. Port forwarding could be easily set up on each small router, that if addressed in a mnemonic fashion, you would access device #1 by telnetting to A.B.C.101; device #2 A.B.C.102, ... DNS could even be set up to further simplify the testing environment.
Each small router would only have to be configured once. Each device to be tested can be left connected for as long as required, and no devices need have their configuration changed throughout the test, ensuring that the test environment is stable, and minimal time is spent debugging network issues.
answered May 26 '14 at 11:34
Nevin WilliamsNevin Williams
3,3351129
add a comment |
If you weren't set on the 'one router' requirement, several small SOHO-grade routers could be configured all with the same LAN-side settings, to which you'd attach your equipment to be tested, one to each router. The WAN side could then be addressed either on its own private network, or your office LAN's network. Port forwarding could be easily set up on each small router, that if addressed in a mnemonic fashion, you would access device #1 by telnetting to A.B.C.101; device #2 A.B.C.102, ... DNS could even be set up to further simplify the testing environment.
Each small router would only have to be configured once. Each device to be tested can be left connected for as long as required, and no devices need have their configuration changed throughout the test, ensuring that the test environment is stable, and minimal time is spent debugging network issues.
answered May 26 '14 at 11:34
Nevin WilliamsNevin Williams
3,3351129
add a comment |
If you weren't set on the 'one router' requirement, several small SOHO-grade routers could be configured all with the same LAN-side settings, to which you'd attach your equipment to be tested, one to each router. The WAN side could then be addressed either on its own private network, or your office LAN's network. Port forwarding could be easily set up on each small router, that if addressed in a mnemonic fashion, you would access device #1 by telnetting to A.B.C.101; device #2 A.B.C.102, ... DNS could even be set up to further simplify the testing environment.
Each small router would only have to be configured once. Each device to be tested can be left connected for as long as required, and no devices need have their configuration changed throughout the test, ensuring that the test environment is stable, and minimal time is spent debugging network issues.
answered May 26 '14 at 11:34
Nevin WilliamsNevin Williams
3,3351129
If you weren't set on the 'one router' requirement, several small SOHO-grade routers could be configured all with the same LAN-side settings, to which you'd attach your equipment to be tested, one to each router. The WAN side could then be addressed either on its own private network, or your office LAN's network. Port forwarding could be easily set up on each small router, that if addressed in a mnemonic fashion, you would access device #1 by telnetting to A.B.C.101; device #2 A.B.C.102, ... DNS could even be set up to further simplify the testing environment.
Each small router would only have to be configured once. Each device to be tested can be left connected for as long as required, and no devices need have their configuration changed throughout the test, ensuring that the test environment is stable, and minimal time is spent debugging network issues.
answered May 26 '14 at 11:34
Nevin WilliamsNevin Williams
3,3351129
answered May 26 '14 at 11:34
Nevin WilliamsNevin Williams
3,3351129
answered May 26 '14 at 11:34
Nevin WilliamsNevin Williams
3,3351129
answered May 26 '14 at 11:34
Nevin WilliamsNevin Williams
3,3351129
3,3351129
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f721354%2fhow-to-communicate-with-devices-that-have-the-same-ip-address%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
You can't; you can do it one at a time but if multiple devices have the same address you have no control over which device will receive the packet
– Ramhound
Feb 25 '14 at 11:24
@Ramhound, If I were to do it one at a time, does there exist a switch that would allow me to programmatically "disable" specific physical ports?
– Angelo
Feb 25 '14 at 11:27
@Angelo if you mean disabling ports at the switch, then yes, but you need managed switch then. It costs more than a bunch of NICs though.
– LogicDaemon
Feb 25 '14 at 20:24
@LogicDaemon, thanks, I've modified my question to try to make my problem a little more clear. Disabling ports, on second thought, would be too much of an obstacle if I can get it work some other way.
– Angelo
Feb 25 '14 at 22:13
The only way would be static APR address. However, Telnet is a TCP/IP application. So setting a device's or devices' MAC to a "fake" IP on a managing system via static APR will not work.
– SgtOJ
Feb 26 '14 at 0:01