I think there are two conversations here - one is why Ancient_mariner saw different IP addresses with the two routers - which I think is already answered fully.

The second is whether to use the "WAN" address or some address within the /29 as the NAT egress address for all traffic egressing from that subnet.

I suppose there's no reason not to do that but I really fail to see sufficient advantage over a properly configured firewall to be worth the head-scratching.

Just because you can NAT at that boundary does not mean that you should. Use it as a DMZ, if you wish to run 'net accessible servers and have your main network on RFC1918 addresses if you wish, that is perfectly sensible. But NAT is not a security device and should not be used as such.

Edited by mr_bean (Tue 25-Jan-22 20:43:30)

By the sound of it, I guess that you cannot divert incoming calls elsewhere for a period until you cancel it?

Cheers!

In reply to a post by Ancient_Mariner:

By the sound of it, I guess that you cannot divert incoming calls elsewhere for a period until you cancel it?

Cheers!

I think you could with a Cisco SPA 112. I think you could also do this with calls that are not answered after a length of time that you can specify.

In reply to a post by Ancient_Mariner:

By the sound of it, I guess that you cannot divert incoming calls elsewhere for a period until you cancel it?

I'd do that on the AAISP voip control pages.

Have now found that I can arrange my mobile (or any other phone(s) to ring at same time as an incoming call to my AAISP VoIP number.

I can then answer using either a home analogue phone via the ATA or answer on my mobile (I then pay the cost of the divert). If out of the house, can answer via the mobile. So best of both worlds.

Cheers!