Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Can't extend lan behind a WDS AP

Last response: in Networking
Share
October 5, 2010 6:21:49 AM

hi,

I'm still struggling with my network :( 

I've changed a bit my config and here is what i have


Router 1 (internet) WDS to Router 2
Router 2 linked by LAN to AP 3

From Router on I can ping router 2 and 3, Can access to the router 2(web admin) Can't access to the AP 3(web admin)
From router 2 I can ping router 1 and AP 3, Can access to the router 1(web admin) Can't access to the AP 3(web admin)

From router 3 I can't get an IP if I try to connect as a client but the AP itself gets an IP from the Router 1 :)  ???

Ip config

Router 1
Manual 192.168.1.1, 255.255.255.0, 192.168.1.1

Router 2
Manual 192.168.1.3, 255.255.255.0, 192.168.1.1


AP 3
Manual 192.168.1.4, 255.255.255.0, 192.168.1.1


What could be the causes of the problem?

More about : extend lan wds

October 5, 2010 6:17:10 PM

Are you sure you pinging the AP on address .4 and not a PC that has that IP assigned to it? Did you take out that IP from the DHCP range on the routers? I get this issue a lot from some techs that work here, they ping an IP and assume it's the device they are looking for that's responding.
m
0
l
October 6, 2010 2:19:14 AM

HI,

I'm pinging it for sure, cause the IP and MAc address matches with the information in NetworkMagic(cisco)

For my DHCP, it starts at 192.168.1.20 so I can put about 18 APs if I want to.
m
0
l
a b X LAN
October 6, 2010 4:51:43 AM

It's just not clear to me how things are connected.

First, you reference "AP3" and "router 3", are these one and the same?

Second, does the following diagram match your configuration:

[router 1 (192.168.1.1)]<-- wireless (wds) -->[router 2 (192.168.1.3)](lan)<-- wire -->(lan)[router 3 (192.168.1.4)]

If so, then presumably you have the DHCP servers for routers 2 and 3 disabled (you better or you’ll have problems).

Finally, I don’t understand the following statement, “the AP itself gets an IP from the Router 1”. Again, I’m assuming router 3 and AP3 are one and the same. I thought router 3 (AP3) had a static IP?? You now seem to be suggesting router3 (AP3) is using DHCP to assign itself an IP. I’m just not following. Maybe router 3 and AP3 are NOT the same thing. I’m lost.





m
0
l
October 6, 2010 6:55:50 AM

Router 3 is the Same as AP3 sorry :) 

You got the right picture of the configuration.

I did 2 test on AP3,

Set up static IP, (192.168.1.4, 255.255.255.0,192.168.1.1)
and get ip automatically.

In the second case the AP3will get an IP assigned by the DHCP :192.168.1.20 (as the first ip available)

In both cases, i can ping AP 3 from the router1, but can't access the webadmin:( 

If a wireless client tries to connect to AP3, he won't get any ip (169...)

Now one of the weirdest thing is, if I connect AP 3 directly to Router 1 it works perfectly. Then if I plug AP3 to router 2, and I connect with my iphone, it uses the old ip and and can get internet from ap3. if I reboot my iphone and try to connect again, it doesn't work. PC won't get and ip either.

Could you follow? it's quite weird....
m
0
l
a b X LAN
October 6, 2010 2:15:11 PM

If I had to guess, the diagram I drew does not quite match your setup (which is why I drew it). I suspect you have router 2 connected to router 3, LAN to WAN (respectively), not LAN to LAN.

[router 1 (192.168.1.1)]<-- wireless (wds) -->[router 2 (192.168.1.3)](lan)<-- wire -->(wan)[router 3 (192.168.1.4)]

That could explain several things.

Clients of router 1 or router 2 can ping router 3, but that’s only router 3's WAN interface responding. Just like any router, the WAN port uses a firewall to prevent penetration to the local network behind it. Likewise, the remote administration screen is not normally accessible from the WAN side. The reason clients behind router 3 can't get an IP address is because DHCP requests can't travel past the WAN port (they’re not supposed to). And since DHCP is disabled on router 3, they return a self-assigned IP address (169.x.x.x), have no gateway IP, etc.

At least everything you've described so far suggests this is the case.

If you're only trying to use router 3 as a WAP (wireless access point), not a router, the connection between router 2 and router 3 needs to be LAN to LAN. You only connect them LAN to WAN (respectively) if you want router 3 to have its own local network. In that case, it needs to use a different subnet (e.g., 192.168.1.x) and have its own DHCP server. And it assumes you *want* to prevent penetration of its local network from the WAN side for some reason (not typical of a home/office network situation).

m
0
l
October 6, 2010 2:39:41 PM

Apparently you worked out my problem quite well, but some points are unclear for me ( lack of technical training ;) 

[router 1 (192.168.1.1)]<-- wireless (wds) -->[router 2 (192.168.1.3)](lan)<-- wire -->(wan)[router 3 (192.168.1.4)]

Router 2 has a wire (RJ45) going to the RJ45 port of the router 3 (WAP) is it lan-lan or lan wan?
I don't understand how a cable can connect to wan (wan means wireless)

Any way thanks for your deep concern in that case, I'm very grateful.
m
0
l
a b X LAN
October 6, 2010 3:32:33 PM

LAN = Local Area Network
WAN = Wide Area Network
WLAN = Wireless LAN

This is why I was such a stickler for making you be precise about whether device “3” is or isn’t a router. A consumer router typically has a single WAN port and several (usually 3-4) LAN ports. In contrast, a standalone WAP (wireless AP) will typically only have a single LAN port. WAN ports and LAN ports serve different purposes. So when you attempt to use a wireless router in lieu of a standalone WAP, you have to be careful which port you use. They work very differently.

A router straddles the line between two different networks. And each side is treated differently. The WAN side is considered potentially “hostile”, so we erect a firewall to prevent penetration by unsolicited traffic from the WAN side to the LAN side. The LAN side (which includes any wired clients on the switch or wireless clients using the AP) defines the local network (e.g., 192.168.1.x). All clients of the local network have unimpeded access to each other (although they may use individual firewalls to further restrict that access) and the network on the other side of the WAN (typically the Internet).

If indeed you used the WAN port of router 3, that’s the problem. You erected a firewall between the wired and wireless clients of that router and the rest of your network. I assume that wasn’t your intent. Instead, you need to use the LAN port so that the wired and wireless clients of router3 are part of the SAME local network as the wired and wireless clients of routers 1 and 2.


m
0
l
October 7, 2010 1:05:10 AM

You rock! I Don't know if it will work but it makes sense :) 

So I can use any port from Router 2 to connect to LAN port on router 3 right?
m
0
l
October 7, 2010 1:09:20 AM

Heu at the back of the router the ports are all named LAN... Is there any way to know which one is wan?
m
0
l
October 7, 2010 1:20:07 AM

I've checked and apparently there is a color code for ports
Yellow means Lan, Blue means Wan Right?

Apparently I have only LAN ports on my routers...

MOdel of router Zyxel P660w t1v2 ( router 1, 2)
AP Zyxel WAP3205
For router 3 I could connect either an AP Zyxel WAP3205 or a router same as 1 and 2
m
0
l
a b X LAN
October 7, 2010 1:21:52 AM

The WAN port usually is named WAN, or perhaps named Internet, and usually it's offset from the LAN ports a bit. If unsure, check the manual.
m
0
l
a b X LAN
October 7, 2010 1:24:12 AM

If a router doesn't have a WAN/Internet port, it's not a router!

Btw, you keep calling routers WAPs, and WAPs routers. A router is not the same as a WAP. You keep using the two terms interchangeably and it only causes confusion.

A router routes between two networks and has at least one WAN port, and at least one LAN port (although having several LAN ports is more common w/ consumer routers). The LAN ports are switched and define the local network. If the router also supports wireless, then it has a WAP (wireless AP) and is transparently bridged to that same local network.

A standalone WAP (i.e., NOT a router), only has a LAN port. A WAP can NOT route! For example, the WAP3205 is only a WAP, it’s not a router.
m
0
l
a b X LAN
October 7, 2010 1:49:46 AM

Ok, I think I see the confusion here. I simply took your word for it the P660W is a router, which it is, but I just checked w/ the Zyxel website and it actually appears to be a DSL combo modem+router (correct me if I'm wrong).

Normally a modem and router are separate devices. The router exposes a WAN port which is connected via a network cable to the modem’s LAN port. But the combo DSL modem+router makes that connection INTERNALLY (that’s why it’s a combo device), so it has no need to expose a WAN port. It only exposes LANs port for the local network, and the connection to the ISP in the form of the RJ11 port.

That's why DSL combo modem+routers suck. It makes it very difficult to reuse the device in cases where you just need routing. It doesn't expose the WAN port.

Fortunately, you don’t need the WAN port. You’re just trying to use the router as a simple switch + WAP. So pick any LAN port you want.

Of course, that begs the question, why didn’t this work in the first place? It was my suspicion you were using the WAN port of router 3, and now it appears that’s not even possible. Hmm.

m
0
l
October 7, 2010 9:12:23 AM

That was a great and detailed explanation. Thanks a lot for your time and your knowledge.

Unfortunately that brings me back to point 0, I still don't know why it's not working:( 
m
0
l
a b X LAN
October 9, 2010 12:29:00 AM

I honestly don't know. My premise from the beginning has always been the same; that perhaps the router was connected via its WAN port. Obviously if there is no WAN, that doesn't apply.

Only thing I can say is that I have seen ppl report strange behavior from these combo modem+router devices when not used w/ DSL. I just saw a few days ago someone complaining their wireless didn't work unless connected to DSL. Granted, it could be some stupid error by the user, but it's not the first time I've heard of strange behavior. As I said, these devices suck for reuse purposes.

If I think of anything, I’ll let you know.
m
0
l
October 9, 2010 2:12:26 AM

Well, as we can't rely on WDS when we have different kind of device,... I will draw a 65 m cable to connect the Aps/ combo :) 

I will make the folowing which apparently work in another condominium:


COMBO 1 (192.168.1.1)](lan)<-- wire -->[AP 2 (192.168.1.3)](lan)<-- wire -->(wan)[COMBO 3 (192.168.1.4)] to be tested but should work

[COMBO 1 (192.168.1.1)]<-- wireless (wds) -->[COMBO 5 (192.168.1.5)] working
[COMBO 1 (192.168.1.1)]<-- wireless (wds) -->[COMBO 4 (192.168.1.2)] working

COMBO = Zyxel P660HW t1 v2
AP = Zyxel WAP3205

The result of this experience, is I'm very upset with the WDS system and the combo things
Why making a WDS things and promote it if it's not certified! Waste of time, money...
m
0
l
January 21, 2011 3:28:06 PM

I would like to know the standard other feature bits of P660W-T1 when using "sys atsh" command in telnet. Would you please send it to jimcafe99@hotmail.com

Thank you very much in advance for your answer.
m
0
l
!