NAT Router - 1783-NATR Alternatives

[mjp123gp]

Hello,

Does anyone have suggestions for an alternative to the AB 1783-NATR router? I need something in similar physical size but hoping to find one cheaper. Space is very limited in these panels so the smaller the better.

Thanks in advance.

[Ken Roach]

They don't get much more compact than the Moxa NAT-102.

Is purchase price or footprint your primary criteria ?

I haven't used the 102 but my general impression is that the Moxa NAT devices are a little trickier to set up, but are reasonably well documented.

[dmroeder]

RevPi is an industrial Linux computer can accomplish 1:1 NAT with a little linux-fu. Nice thing, once you have it working, you can script the configuration.

https://revolutionpi.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1301

[skyfox]

Slightly Off topic. Can someone explain purpose of a NAT router? And what issue it solves?

[drbitboy]

Originally Posted by skyfox

Slightly Off topic. Can someone explain purpose of a NAT router?

Item (ii) below.

Originally Posted by skyfox

And what issue it solves?

Servers need to be accessible to clients; clients need to be accessible to no one. There are (relatively) few servers but many clients. Many, many, clients. Many more clients needing addresses than are available in the 32-bit (4-octet) IP address space; also more clients in an organization than are available in that organization's purchased IP address allocation.

NAT essentially hides many clients behind one IP address; futhermore, NATs can be stacked. That is, all clients behind a NAT router with its WAN port on The Internet appear to The Internet as if they all have the same IP address i.e. that of the WAN side of the NAT router.

Each client typically makes few connections at any given time; servers typically have many connections made to them. The WAN side (one IP address) of a NAT router can make many proxy client connections, one for each of the actual client connections behind the NAT router; all it takes is a bit of bookkeeping.

Cf. https://github.com/drbitboy/nat

[skyfox]

Thanks for the explanation.


Cheers.

[JesperMP]

Another reason.
As machine supplier, you supply 10 identical machines to one customer. Each machine have many networking devices (CPUs, HMIs, IO, Drives, ..).
You want to not change the networking on each machine, but still be able to connect further up to a supervisory system. The NAT router solves this.

[celichi]

Originally Posted by mjp123gp

Hello,

Does anyone have suggestions for an alternative to the AB 1783-NATR router? I need something in similar physical size but hoping to find one cheaper. Space is very limited in these panels so the smaller the better.

Thanks in advance.

Turck - FEN20-EN1-DIN

[Ken Moore]

Originally Posted by Ken Roach

They don't get much more compact than the Moxa NAT-102.

Is purchase price or footprint your primary criteria ?

I haven't used the 102 but my general impression is that the Moxa NAT devices are a little trickier to set up, but are reasonably well documented.

I have had, good results with Moxa, and tech support is above average.

[PreLC]

Stratix Managed switches are also NAT capable depending on which ones you buy. I've used Stratix 5700 in the past with layer 2 NAT like the 1783-NATR, Stratix 5800 also comes with Layer 3 NAT, like the 9300ENA.

[dmroeder]

Originally Posted by PreLC

Stratix Managed switches are also NAT capable depending on which ones you buy. I've used Stratix 5700 in the past with layer 2 NAT like the 1783-NATR, Stratix 5800 also comes with Layer 3 NAT, like the 9300ENA.

LOL, that negates the OP's 2 requirements, save space and money over the NATR.

[PreLC]

Originally Posted by dmroeder

LOL, that negates the OP's 2 requirements, save space and money over the NATR.

Oh I'm sorry, should have specified.

You can have multiple VLANs on the Stratix switches, so you can in theory use the same one switch for multiple NAT connections. Saving money and space.

I think one stratix was about 5K, each NATR was about 1.5k. You can setup 7 VLANs on the 8 port Stratix 5700, and NAT+ route them to the plant network via the 8th port. Better cost proposition.
Make room in a single panel, then drop ethernet to different local panels, space proposition also.

[dmroeder]

Originally Posted by PreLC

Oh I'm sorry, should have specified.

You can have multiple VLANs on the Stratix switches, so you can in theory use the same one switch for multiple NAT connections. Saving money and space.

I think one stratix was about 5K, each NATR was about 1.5k. You can setup 7 VLANs on the 8 port Stratix 5700, and NAT+ route them to the plant network via the 8th port. Better cost proposition.
Make room in a single panel, then drop ethernet to different local panels, space proposition also.

Ah, I see, that makes sense.

[aawilliams85]

The Hirschmann Eagle One can be configured for 1:1 NAT; it has a lot more complexity than the 1783-NATR but is more powerful too.

[mjp123gp]

Originally Posted by Ken Roach

They don't get much more compact than the Moxa NAT-102.

Is purchase price or footprint your primary criteria ?

I haven't used the 102 but my general impression is that the Moxa NAT devices are a little trickier to set up, but are reasonably well documented.

Thanks. I've never seen this one but looks like it should be just what I'm looking for.