[seanessy]

My 1TB Time Capsule has been excellent, so much quieter than my firewire drives, which are now exclusively used for SuperDuper! clones.
I do have the double nat problem, though, and I never had it before.
Any idea how to clear it up, without running in bridge mode?

[Glenn_Fleishman]

seanessy said:

My 1TB Time Capsule has been excellent, so much quieter than my firewire drives, which are now exclusively used for SuperDuper! clones.

I do have the double nat problem, though, and I never had it before.
Any idea how to clear it up, without running in bridge mode?

When you say clear it up, you mean "keep AirPort Utility from bugging me about it"? You can check the Ignore box next to the warning and it stops bugging you.

But since you're actually double NATted if are using a NAT on the Time Capsule and it's connected to a LAN port on another NAT gateway, you can only technically get rid of double NATting by using bridge mode, you're right.

[hyettl]

Just bought the 1TB model myself. Tried for hours to get it working on my own, ended up speaking with tech support - couldn't help. Took it to an Apple store, they replaced it and had one of their Genius' work on it for an hour (this is a brand new one with my brand new MacBook Air). Finally got it working in the store. Took it home and plugged it into my cable modem and it worked until I hooked up a PC to it. Then it doesn't work for either Air or PC. I can disconnect PC, reboot my Air and then it works again. I'm taking this thing back. Back to my Linksys.

Larry

[seanessy]

Thanks Glenn, I do have it set up to ignore the error and display a green light.

I'm not sure why I get the error; I'm connected to the internet by a short range radio( rural ISPs use these in Canada), and as far as I can tell the equipment has no NAT capabilities. The ISP does block some service ports, so maybe that's what makes it look like a NAT to the TC. I really don't know. Everything works, though, so I'm going to continue ignoring it( until it stops working...)

The error box in Airport Utility tells me that I have a private IP on my WAN, and network Utility confirms it, but if I check my IP address online, it's a regular public IP address.

[Glenn_Fleishman]

seanessy said:

Thanks Glenn, I do have it set up to ignore the error and display a green light.

I'm not sure why I get the error; I'm connected to the internet by a short range radio( rural ISPs use these in Canada), and as far as I can tell the equipment has no NAT capabilities. The ISP does block some service ports, so maybe that's what makes it look like a NAT to the TC. I really don't know. Everything works, though, so I'm going to continue ignoring it( until it stops working...)

The error box in Airport Utility tells me that I have a private IP on my WAN, and network Utility confirms it, but if I check my IP address online, it's a regular public IP address.

I suspect that the AirPort is relying on the IP range. There are three generally used, reserved private IP address ranges guaranteed to not be routable and in use on the Intenret: {font:Arial}10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 (10.0.0.0/8), 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16.0.0/12), and 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168.0.0/16). I would guess the ISP uses a form of NAT in which they assign you a private address but map that to a public address.{font}

{font:Arial}When you look at the address assigned to the Time Capsule, what is it? In one of those ranges? And if you go to one of those "what is my IP address" services (search Google), what's your public address? (Feel free to omit digits with _ or XX to keep privacy.) {font}

[seanessy]

The Time Capsule has an IP address of 10.0.1XX local, displays 10.4.29.XXX as it's external IP.
My actual public IP is 66.38.XXX.XX.

My ISP does block P2P ports. Maybe that's part of the cause...

I used to have an AEBS G as the main WAP, and I still use it in bridge mode to provide wireless to the G machines in our household. When I first got the Time Capsule, I had it( the Time Capsule) in bridge mode, serving wireless to the N clients.

I knew reversing the roles of these WAPs might cause some hiccups, so I hard reset both to factory settings and started fresh. I still wound up with the double NAT issue, after manually configuring the WAPs. I wrote an email to the ISP to see if might be how their network is set up, still haven't heard back from them. Phoned Applecare, and the guy I talked with didn't have any new ideas for me.

It almost seems like the new Airport Utility is 'haunted' by the 'ghosts' of previous network configurations, and it has a hard time with changing hardware configurations-you can migrate settings from one WAP to another with Airport Utility. I got very familiar with the older versions of Airport Utility, and I find the new version a little too 'dumbed down' for my taste. I can see why Apple changed it though: average users don't want to spend time mucking about with settings. On my install, I have an option to have an Access Control List based on MAC addresses for the AEBS G, but not for the Time Capsule. There's some other minor annoyances with the new Airport Utility that I won't go into, but leads me to a feeling of mistrust towards this new version.

I'm almost tempted to go hunting through Airport Utilities prefs/ app support files, but I'm not sure which ones to wipe out.

[Glenn_Fleishman]

seanessy said:

The Time Capsule has an IP address of 10.0.1XX local, displays 10.4.29.XXX as it's external IP.
My actual public IP is 66.38.XXX.XX.

My ISP does block P2P ports. Maybe that's part of the cause...

Your ISP is using NAT internally, even though they've given you a specific IP address. This allows them to filter and control traffic better, it's true. If they gave you that address directly, then they have to engage a different set of probably more expensive and complicated mechanisms to block your ports.

[imagineengine]

Archiving the Time Capsule data to a NAS USB drive is definitely useful especially in case the internal drive fails. I would like to see Apple add the archival option to move the sparse bundle to a .Mac account. This way the data could be kept offsite remotely accessible by the user in case of fire or theft or even in case of a natural disaster (ie: flood, tornado, earthquake).

[Glenn_Fleishman]

imagineengine said:

Archiving the Time Capsule data to a NAS USB drive is definitely useful especially in case the internal drive fails. I would like to see Apple add the archival option to move the sparse bundle to a .Mac account. This way the data could be kept offsite remotely accessible by the user in case of fire or theft or even in case of a natural disaster (ie: flood, tornado, earthquake).

Not practical with current storage offered and current broadband for most people.

[WilfredLaurier]

I was wondering if anyone has run benchmark comparisons to determine which is faster between Time Capsule's internal HDD, an external USB drive hooked up to Time Capsule or an external USB drive hooked up to the Airport Extreme Base Station? I was thinking that Time Capsule's internal HDD should be fastest assuming it is using a direct SATA to wireless controller, but the reports of slow performance aren't encouraging. I was thinking that now with the AEBS supporting Time Machine, if the performance is about the same as Time Capsule's internal drive, I might as well get an AEBS and just hook up a spare external hard drive since it'll be cheaper and easily upgradable too. Or perhaps if Time Capsule's USB drive is comparable to it's internal HDD, I might just get a 500GB Time Capsule and expand later when I need to via external USB and HDD prices will probably be lower for more capacity anyways.

[Glenn_Fleishman]

WilfredLaurier said:

I was wondering if anyone has run benchmark comparisons to determine which is faster between Time Capsule's internal HDD, an external USB drive hooked up to Time Capsule or an external USB drive hooked up to the Airport Extreme Base Station? I was thinking that Time Capsule's internal HDD should be fastest assuming it is using a direct SATA to wireless controller, but the reports of slow performance aren't encouraging. I was thinking that now with the AEBS supporting Time Machine, if the performance is about the same as Time Capsule's internal drive, I might as well get an AEBS and just hook up a spare external hard drive since it'll be cheaper and easily upgradable too. Or perhaps if Time Capsule's USB drive is comparable to it's internal HDD, I might just get a 500GB Time Capsule and expand later when I need to via external USB and HDD prices will probably be lower for more capacity anyways.

I did some of this testing for the review, but didn't re-test everything with the new firmware. My preliminary results showed that the real bottleneck is the AFP server and CPU in the AirPort and Time Capsule. So even though you should get great performance with the SATA, it's limited by the network. You should, ideally, top 200 Mbps between gigabit Ethernet and the SATA controller, but as I note, about 75 Mbps was the top pure AFP (no Time Machine) performance.

[imagineengine]

Glen, I'm not saying that with the current storage offered on a .Mac account it would be possible to archive the sparse bundle from Time Capsule. What I'm saying is that Apple should consider this service for their customers by increasing the offsite storage for .Mac accounts and enabling this feature in Time Capsule. Mozy for example provides unlimited backup of data for home users at $4.95/month as well offering backup solutions for SOHO and Enterprise. That's still far cheaper than what .Mac offers though lacks things such as iWeb, etc that I find useful.

[Glenn_Fleishman]

imagineengine said:

Glen, I'm not saying that with the current storage offered on a .Mac account it would be possible to archive the sparse bundle from Time Capsule. What I'm saying is that Apple should consider this service for their customers by increasing the offsite storage for .Mac accounts and enabling this feature in Time Capsule. Mozy for example provides unlimited backup of data for home users at $4.95/month as well offering backup solutions for SOHO and Enterprise. That's still far cheaper than what .Mac offers though lacks things such as iWeb, etc that I find useful.

I see. Ain't going to happen. Mozy's $5 per month pricing is predicated on most people having just 768 Kbps of upstream, which provides a de facto limit on how much you can upload each time (plus you don't want to saturate your broadband 100 percent of the time upstream with backups). Mozy is a startup; what happens to your data if their model proves unviable? I see Mozy and Carbonite as useful additions to a backup arsenal (in some ways). (Mozy's multiple machine and business pricing isn't $5 per month; that's a single home computer.)

I doubt Apple would get into such a business, because it puts them into a reliability requirement that's very high and they're a great target for lawsuits if there's ever any problem.

[Virginian]

I think your information on Mozy may be out of date they are part of EMC a 30.7 Billion dollar company.