Stable internal IP addresses I can ping to check connectivity

Internet access discussion, including Fusion, IP Broadband, and Gigabit Fiber!
10 posts Page 1 of 1
by aanon4 » Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:07 pm
Short version: Does Sonic have a couple of stable IP addresses in their network I can reliably ping?

Long version: I'm using a pfSense box to manage my two fiber lines. To check each lines is "up" pfSense will ping a downstream address, usually the gateway. However, if both lines are given the same gateway (which can happen :-() then pfSense gets confused and thinks both lines are down. I've found that if I ping addresses which are guaranteed to be different (so not the assigned gateway), pfSense can determine the lines are valid and let traffic flow (Note: This doesn't fix all the problems with two interfaces having the same gateway, but it means one line will work, rather than zero).

Until today I was just picking two internal address on the Sonic network somewhat at random (they were X.X.X.1 addresses, so probably routers), but today Sonic made one of these addresses disappear, bringing down half of my network. I could just ping 1.1.1.1 and 1.0.0.1 which will always be up, but it would be nice to ping something a little bit more local. Does Sonic have any stable IP addresses I could use?
by dane » Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:14 pm
Try ping.sonic.net.

Is this on the Fusion Fiber SOHO 2Gbps (1+1) service? If so, curious if you’ve seen the new Netgear RAX series routers that seem to support dual Gigabit WAN inputs - and some offer 2.5, 5.0 and 10Gbps on the client side, with BZ Ethernet. They’re not cheap at $360-$600, but look interesting to consider pairing with the biz Fiber offering.
Dane Jasper
Sonic
by aanon4 » Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:25 pm
Thanks Dane. Does ping.sonic.net only have the one IP address, because I can't use a hostname? And is it stable because, again, I have to hardwire it. I can probably get away with just fixing one networks monitoring IP and let the other float.

Yes, this is your Fusion Fiber service. My pfSense is virtualized so I'll probably stick with it for now. Mind you, if this Netgear box could handle dual inputs on the same network (which is what barfs pfSense) that would make it interesting.
by dane » Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:46 pm
We’ve run that ping target for purposes like this for many many years. Can’t guarantee it won’t get renumbered someday, life is uncertain. ;)

We haven’t done any testing with these routers, I just ran across them today and was intrigued by the 2Gbps (1+1) capability, in the context of the service you have. But no idea about compatibility with regards to the common gateway scenario.

We’ve been considering putting NAT into the ONT by the way - this would mean all four ports would get private IPs in the same subnet, with the same gateway of course, the ONT itself. There are pros and cons to this, but it’s something we’ve been talking about. And I wonder if it’d work with a prosumer router like this.

Our focus has been on gigabit fed mesh routers, the Eero product we offer today. But it might be possible to take the four gigabit Ethernet ports out of an ONT like the one you have and deliver 2x1Gbps bonded links to TWO of these Netgear devices, wired and deployed to different sides of the home. And, I wonder if you can bridge them and our ‘em on the same SSID and achieve proper seamless WiFi transition. Likely too much to ask. =)
Dane Jasper
Sonic
by aanon4 » Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:47 pm
PS. The documentation for the Netgear RAX200 suggests (the documentation is vague) the WAN connection is aggregated using LACP ... but last I checked this was not something Sonic supported. Has this changed?
by aanon4 » Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:01 pm
dane wrote:We’ve been considering putting NAT into the ONT by the way - this would mean all four ports would get private IPs in the same subnet, with the same gateway of course, the ONT itself. There are pros and cons to this, but it’s something we’ve been talking about.
Can't say I'd be delighted with having to deal with a double-NAT, and it would break the way pfSense, FreeBSD and anything else I'm aware of, from aggregating the two 1G lines without some proper aggregation support from the ONT.
by dane » Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:12 pm
Good point. I’d guess Netgear expects two ISPs, separate networks.
Dane Jasper
Sonic
by aanon4 » Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:21 pm
Was going to say that it looks like they intend it to be used with their multi-gig modem (CM1200 supporting DOCSIS 3.1) which uses link aggregation to get the 2G of speed between the modem and the router:

Image
by gtwrek » Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:48 pm
aanon4 wrote:Can't say I'd be delighted with having to deal with a double-NAT, and it would break the way pfSense, FreeBSD and anything else I'm aware of, from aggregating the two 1G lines without some proper aggregation support from the ONT.
Double Plus please no on the double-NAT. This get's in the way of so much, not just line aggregation. I maintain my own router - which needs the WAN address. We need bridged (or equivalent) level of service. I hope Sonic isn't seriously considering this, at least not without allowing the end-user to disable it. Or am I misreading this thread?

Regards,
Mark
by aanon4 » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:38 pm
Well the conversation was about something else, but Dane did rather curveball it with the NAT comment. I've been a Sonic customer DSL and fiber, and they've *never* forced a NAT on me. It'll be a sad day if they walk away from that.
10 posts Page 1 of 1

Who is online

In total there are 35 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 34 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 999 on Mon May 10, 2021 1:02 am

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 34 guests