ottoag :
Interesting instruction but I'm missing some ip's or configuration instruction
In my case I have
FIOS > [1-Router 192.168.1.x] > [2-Router 192.168.10.x] >[3-Router 192.168.11.x]
(My PC's, Wii on 3-Router can't see my NAS Drive from 2-Router 'LAN"]
What I'm missing in my router setup?
will it help if I assign all WAN IP to: 192.168.1.1 ???
Q: What WAN ip I can assign?
Note: [2-Roter have dynamic on from 100-254]
I have [3-router for WiFi] this way my IP can't conflict if new DHCP come to network
My Goal is to make [Router 3 - 192.168.11.1 - 254] access NAS Drive on [Router 2 192.168.10.1 - 254] and reverse
What you’ve described as your goal (“…to make [Router 3 - 192.168.11.1 - 254] access NAS Drive on [Router 2 192.168.10.1 - 254] and reverse”) is too narrow. I could just tell you to drop the firewall on router 3 to allow access from router 2’s network, but it begs the question why you’re configured this way in the first place. What’s the BIG picture here? Why do you have so many routers, with so many networks? You obviously have something in mind, but it isn’t clear. Are you trying to prevent access to resources from one network to another? Do you need a separate guest network? Do you want to keep wireless users limited to internet access? Do you just need more LAN ports? IOW, describe it in plain english, then we’ll discuss the technical details to make it happen.
When I tresponded to the OP, it was my assumption he wanted/needed to keep the two routers/networks separated, but I didn’t delve any deeper. And as a result, I offered a Y configuration that did just that. However, it’s not clear to me that you want/need the same thing. In your case, you presumably have chained your routers over their respective wan ports.
FIOS >(wan) [1-Router 192.168.1.x]
(lan) > (wan)[2-Router 192.168.10.x]
(lan) >(wan)[3-Router 192.168.11.x]
There are very few circumstances in which the average consumer needs more than one network. In fact, more networks often cause the very kind of problems you’re experiencing, such as access problems across those networks due to firewalls. But you normally only need those firewalls when you consider the other network to be potentially hostile, such as when your primary router is connected to the ISP over the modem (since you don’t control the ISP’s network, it only makes sense to be suspicious and protect yourself from him and the greater Internet). But in your case, it’s not obvious that routers 2 and 3 should be considered similarly. That’s not to say you couldn’t make the case (e.g., you want to give Internet access to guests but not let them have access to the rest of your network). But without making that clear, it’s hard to say which configuration makes the most sense.
For example, assuming you DON’T need to keep these networks protected from one another, you could simply connect them LAN to LAN. You would also need to disable the DHCP servers on routers 2 and 3, and give them a unique static IP in the same network as the primary router.
FIOS >(wan) [1-Router 192.168.1.1]
(lan) > (lan)[2-Router 192.168.1.2]
(lan) >(lan)[3-Router 192.168.1.3]
As configured, routers 2 and 3 do NOT route (since that would require the use of their respective WAN ports, which remain UNUSED), but merely switched. You might do this, for example, if you needed more LAN ports for the primary router, and/or wanted to add another wireless AP.
It’s a helluva lot easier to manage the above configuration than trying to manage MULTIPLE networks as in your proposed configuration. Again, I’m not saying a case can’t be made, but I’ve seen far too many ppl do just what you’ve described when in fact it was completely unnecessary once their true goals were understood. And spend endless hours trying to debug it because they failed to fully understand the implications.