Router under Router

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Hello,

I have a router with a 192.168.6.* range. I will be installing a
wireless router under the first router, I would like to use the same
subnetwork 192.168.6.*
I mean whichever IPs is left. Is that possible ? if yes, how would I
do that ?

thanks,

Giovanni

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

The router connected to the modem can stay with the default IP address
(Linksys 192.168.1.1 etc) with DHCP enabled. You will configure this router
for Internet access (if DSL, usually need to enable PPPoE etc, nothing for
cable usually)
The next router needs a distinct IP address (change it on its configuration
page to something like 192.168.1.10 (last digits should be <100), DHCP
disabled (you only want one DHCP server on one network) and it should
function as a router ONLY and NOT as a gateway (you need to look at the
router settings - both can't be trying to access the Internet)
Change the last digits ONLY and leave the 1st 3 sets the same as the 1st
router.
Each router must have a distinct IP address or you will have major
collisions.

If you have computers connected directly to the 1st computer, they may not
have access to any computers behind the 2nd but those connected to the 2nd
can see the one connected directly to the 1st.


"Giovanni" <jjcuzz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e90f2549.0411091421.6486e37c@posting.google.com...
> Hello,
>
> I have a router with a 192.168.6.* range. I will be installing a
> wireless router under the first router, I would like to use the same
> subnetwork 192.168.6.*
> I mean whichever IPs is left. Is that possible ? if yes, how would I
> do that ?
>
> thanks,
>
> Giovanni

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

On 9 Nov 2004 14:21:36 -0800, jjcuzz@hotmail.com (Giovanni) wrote:

>I have a router with a 192.168.6.* range. I will be installing a
>wireless router under the first router, I would like to use the same
>subnetwork 192.168.6.*
>I mean whichever IPs is left. Is that possible ? if yes, how would I
>do that ?

Your description fits two possible arrangements, neither of which will
work. One is to have both routers share the same IP address on the
WAN side. That will not work. The other is to connect the two
routers in "series" with a LAN port of the 1st router going to the WAN
port of the 2nd router. That will work only if you use different
Class C IP blocks on the 2nd router. It might be possible to play
with subnet masks to get them both on the same Class C block, but as I
recall, many cheapo routers don't allow NAT from and to the same Class
C IP block. In other words, this is a bad idea.

It would be interesting to know what you are trying to accomplish with
two routers.

Did you know that you can convert one of the two routers into just an
access point (bridge) by simply ignoring the WAN port. This will give
you an overlapping access to the entire LAN side DHCP pool of the sole
router. Wireless connections and see wired connections, etc.

http://kbserver.netgear.com/kb_web_files/n101236.asp


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Hi Jeff,
thanks everyone for responding.
Ok, I will explain what I need to do. We have a novell network with
bordermanager. I have recycled 3 linksys wireless router g( for this I
know I should have got access point). The novell bordermanager does
not use dhcp. I need wireless company wide, so that people with wi-fi
Pocket PCs and people with laptop can connect wireless if they need
and authorized.
Now that I think of, I might not need to use the same subnetwork. The
main reason was: I need to VNC the clients for support, but as long I
have the port forwarding I should be able to shadow those clients. The
wireless router can have any subnetwork, and I would still be able to
do the job.

Am I correct ?

thanks,

Giovanni

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message news:<qav2p01k2190ku0a9otd4nfjtsh8v1vii0@4ax.com>...
> On 9 Nov 2004 14:21:36 -0800, jjcuzz@hotmail.com (Giovanni) wrote:
>
> >I have a router with a 192.168.6.* range. I will be installing a
> >wireless router under the first router, I would like to use the same
> >subnetwork 192.168.6.*
> >I mean whichever IPs is left. Is that possible ? if yes, how would I
> >do that ?
>
> Your description fits two possible arrangements, neither of which will
> work. One is to have both routers share the same IP address on the
> WAN side. That will not work. The other is to connect the two
> routers in "series" with a LAN port of the 1st router going to the WAN
> port of the 2nd router. That will work only if you use different
> Class C IP blocks on the 2nd router. It might be possible to play
> with subnet masks to get them both on the same Class C block, but as I
> recall, many cheapo routers don't allow NAT from and to the same Class
> C IP block. In other words, this is a bad idea.
>
> It would be interesting to know what you are trying to accomplish with
> two routers.
>
> Did y
ou know that you can convert one of the two routers into just an
> access point (bridge) by simply ignoring the WAN port. This will give
> you an overlapping access to the entire LAN side DHCP pool of the sole
> router. Wireless connections and see wired connections, etc.
>
> http://kbserver.netgear.com/kb_web_files/n101236.asp

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

On 10 Nov 2004 06:10:42 -0800, jjcuzz@hotmail.com (Giovanni) wrote:

>Ok, I will explain what I need to do. We have a novell network with
>bordermanager.

Hopefully, you're running IP as a protocol, not IPX/SPX. IPX/SPX does
work with access points (that work on layer 2 MAC and don't know
anything about higher level protocols), but the timing is really
bizarre. When I tried it, performance was really erratic. Of course,
none of the cheapo wireless routers will work because they route only
IP.

>I have recycled 3 linksys wireless router g( for this I
>know I should have got access point). The novell bordermanager does
>not use dhcp. I need wireless company wide, so that people with wi-fi
>Pocket PCs and people with laptop can connect wireless if they need
>and authorized.

You can assign fixed IP address to every wireless client and device,
but I don't recommend it. The labour and complications (along with
potential mistakes) is far to great. Portable clients, such as
laptops and PDA's should use DHCP to get their IP numbers.

If you don't currently have a DHCP server, I suggest you setup one.
Some companies do not enable DHCP servers as some kind of
authentication and security measure, so be careful here with policy
issues.

If a central DHCP server is not possible or practical, you can enable
the DHCP servers in the wireless routers (used as access points) if
make absolutely sure they don't have overlapping ranges. This works
fine for a small number of access points, but rapidly becomes a mess
with anything over perhaps 5 access points. I would suggest a single
central DHCP server.

>Now that I think of, I might not need to use the same subnetwork. The
>main reason was: I need to VNC the clients for support, but as long I
>have the port forwarding I should be able to shadow those clients. The
>wireless router can have any subnetwork, and I would still be able to
>do the job.
>
>Am I correct ?

No. The problem with using an NAT router for wireless is that you can
open a port to single specific client computah, but with DHCP, you
could never be sure that the forwarded port leads to the specific
client (as the IP address might change). Similarly, you don't know
which router would have client connected. Lastly, you can open only
ONE port from a router WAN port to specific client computah. If you
wanted to connect to another client, you would need either a different
port number, or need to reconfigure the router every time you try and
connect. All you've done is transfer the fixed IP administration mess
to the port number management mess. Not recommended. Use access
points and a central DHCP server.

VNC port forwarding using SSH.
http://www.ltsp.org/contrib/vnc.html


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558