DPH-154 Microcell blocked by RV325 SoHo Router

[turnbulls]

I am having a problem getting AT&T's Cisco Microcell DPH-154 to work via a Cisco RV325 SoHo router. I could really use some help either making the microcell work off the private LAN, or I could use some help getting the DMZ working.

DMZ option - I've tried to setup the second WAN port for DMZ, but when I put the IP address in for the DMZ, the LAN disconnects from the internet. I also question this setting because it wants a single public address but the RV325 obtains the internet IP automatically from the ISP. Meaning that they give me a randomized set of IP addresses. I also set the DMZ host up to different private IP addresses 192.168.1.5, 192.168.1.210. And set the DHCP to bind the DPH-154 to the DMZ hosting address.

Normal LAN option - I've tried.

1. Forwarding all ports.

2. Making ports have one to one address translation

3. Allowed all ports through firewall

4. Turned off the firewall

5. Set MTU size to 1492

These are the ports I've opened:

-123/UDP: NTP timing (NTP traffic).
-443/TCP: Https over TLS/SSL for provisioning and management traffic.
-4500/UDP: IPSec NAT Traversal (for all signaling, data, voice traffic).
-500/UDP: IPSec Phase 1 prior to NAT detection (after NAT detection, 4500/UDP is used).
-4500/UDP: After NAT detection, 4500/UDP is used

Please help,

Thank you,

I know its the router because the Microcell works if I connect it directly to the Internet

Does anyone have suggestions. I'm desperate

[cchamorr]

Hello,

Just out of curiosity, when you go to the system summary on the router and look at the WAN 1 IP address, what kind of address is it? Private or Public? Are your LAN and WAN on different subnets?

Using One to One NAT won't work as it requires the router to have a static IP address as well as access to more than 1 public IP address from the provider.

If you do have a public Ip address on the router then port forwarding to the IP address of the microcell should work.

[turnbulls]

My WAN1 port is connected to my cable modem, which has a public IP address 172.16.2.xxx

My LAN ports are all private addresses 192.168.1.xxx

So is your suggestion is to just connect the microcell to one of the standard LAN ports and use the one-to one NAT? I can always pay the extra fees to get a fixed IP address from my ISP. I'll try to validate it first.

The funny thing is, is that its the cisco microcell that cant get through the cisco router. Both Verizon and sprint microcells worked perfectly by just connecting them to the standard LAN ports.

Thank you cchamorr

[turnbulls]

cchamorr, or any others...

To setup the one to one NAT, the RV325 wants a public IP range that's not assigned to my router.

My router has been given an address of 72.211.250.209, a gateway of 72.211.250.1, and a DNS of 68.105.28.11.

I thought the only public IP address I get, is the one assigned to the router (gateway).

What would I use for a public IP range?

Thanks

[cchamorr]

Hello, 

I'm sorry my previous answer was confusing. To be more clear.

No, you cannot use One to One NAT with your current configuration.

Second, I'm sorry but I'm running out of ideas.

One thing that you can do is to create a port forwarding rule sending ALL TRAFFIC to the ip address of the MicroCell. If it works better then we know that we just need to find out all the ports that are needed for it to work properly, if it doesn't work then we know it has nothing to do with ports.

I hope this helps

[turnbulls]

I did a packet capture yesterday and found that the routers DHCP server is not assigning an IP address to the MAC address of the DPH-154. It's just doing an ARP and getting nothing back, so the IP address ends up as 0.0.0.0

there appears to be a bug preventing the two Cisco devices from being compatible.

Level 2 is looking into it for me.

[cchamorr]

Thank you for that information.

Please let us know what they discover.

[Victor Fernando Sereno Azocar]

     Hola.

     Esto sucede cuando tienes configurada un red inalambrica, y el usuario movil se cambia de AP, si los ap están conectados en un switch diferente, el equipo generará el log porque lo asume que lo está conociendo por una mac diferente.

     Si este no es tu caso es porque existe un loop en tu red. 

   Saludos.

[Mark Lavendoski]

I have exact situation with an RV320 (which i believe is same firmware function). I have done same firewall open ports (as listed in AT&T Micro-cell support) with no success.

When i substitute router w / used ones I have around the Micro-cell works fine; ie Linksys WRT120N, WRT-54G, Netgear WNR2000 (all residential grade). I want to use a more robust router as the RV320. Must be some setting(s) somehow to accomplish this.

[turnbulls]

I just spent a hour on the phone with support.

It looks like the DPH-154 wasn't getting an IP address from the DHCP server. Eventhough I bound the MAC address to an IP address.

Question:

1. Does your DPH-154's MAC address show up under the RV325's DHCP's status table?

2. Does your DPH-154's MAC address show up under "Unknown MAC addresses" inside the DHCP MAC Binding age?

[turnbulls]

Mark, are you running in dual stack mode? (IPv4 and IPv6).

[Mark Lavendoski]

No.

I have a post for my specific symptoms at https://supportforums.cisco.com/discussion/12419496/dph154-micro-cell-will-not-connect-rv320 . it seems that same conclusion on symptoms has been arrived at - that the DPH-154 does not get a DHCP lease from said routers, therefore no 'connection'.

So it seems to me the solution lies with the DHCP request process between micro-cell and Router...

[SamirD]

Would there be a way to set up a static IP on the dph-154?  That would eliminate any problems with dhcp.

[turnbulls]

That's the problem. the DHCP is ignoring the MAC address from the DPH-154.

There is no way to give the DPH-154 an IP address. And, even if you were to play some tricks to get an IP address associated with the PDH-154, the router still ignores the packets to and from that port.

Cisco, is working on a custom firmware to fix the issue. Thanks anyway

Mark, you might want to open a case under your warrantee.

[SamirD]

Yeah, it doesn't seem like a manual IP can be assigned to the device, which is a bummer.  Good luck on getting a fix from Cisco in under a month (or a couple of months).  Firmware updates take time...