Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Connect 2 networks together (They both have internet connection)

Last response: in Wireless Networking
Share
September 2, 2012 11:59:49 PM

Hello everyone.
First of all, I looked everywhere and tried everything before deciding to ask the community about this. If It was right in front of my eyes and I missed, I'm really sorry..

This is how it goes. In my home I have 2 networks, and they're both connected to a different modem, receiving internet from the same ISP. I first had only one,
ISP>Modem>Router(dd-wrt)>>computers
But because we have almost 7 PC's connected constantly sucking all the internet, I decided to pay for another internet connection only for my bedroom.
So there's another modem connected to my router giving me internet access via LAN to my pc. Mine has WEP 128, the other router doesn't. Both WRT54G with DD-WRT

I realized that now I can't share files with the other computers.
How can I bridge this two connections so I can see all other computers to share files? But keeping both internet connections for each router. Only connect them by LAN, no wan connection wanted.

I have another router that's not being used ATM, a Nisuta NS-WIR150N2.

Maybe I can make them connect to the Nisuta router ONLY the LAN part, so internet connection doesn't get mixed up.

Any help or comment is greatly appreciated,
Thanks
Augusto Bachmann
September 3, 2012 1:25:37 AM

It could be done using a third router as a gateway between the two networks. However, I fear it would be daunting for most ppl to configure, esp if you have limited networking experience. It’s best avoided except for the truly committed (in both senses of the word).

What this illustrates is why it’s normally a really bad idea to create multiple networks in a home or small office settings. It’s nothing but headaches and almost never necessary.

So what I recommend is eliminating the two networks, and creating ONE network using a dual-wan router. And now the router can transparently manage both ISP connections, provide load balancing, and even failover protection.

Frankly, you'll make better use of all that bandwidth if it’s available to everyone, all the time. Nothing could be more wasteful than to having a connection that’s otherwise not in use, unavailable simply because it’s located on the other network.
m
0
l
September 3, 2012 3:08:35 AM

Thank you very much for the response in such short time.

I get your point. I will see if I can get a dual-wan router here where I live.

I didn't get your last paragraph. What do you mean by "that bandwidth"? Everything is in use here. My family uses the original network, with the original internet connection, like we always did, but I'm using a new connection, that has NOTHING to do with that one. Like in two separate houses.
m
0
l
Related resources
September 3, 2012 3:47:27 AM

What I meant is *actively* in-use. If you have two independent ISP connections, but no one is actively using one of them at the moment (or even only lightly), it's silly to not have that bandwidth made available where it could possibly do some good, on the other network! Instead, it's just wasted.

Now granted, you could argue it guarantees you all the bandwidth for yourself when you are actively using it, but how often is that? I could see if it was actively being used 99% of the time, but more likely 99% of time it’s doing nothing. So why waste it? Let the dual-wan router load balance all of it and help you get the most out of it.
m
0
l
September 3, 2012 3:53:28 AM

Mmm I think that I don't get how dual-wan routers work. If I'm not using actively one connection, And I start using a dual-wan router, the computers on the network will receive twice the "internet speed" ?
I'm sorry if this sounds stupid.
For example,. I have 3MB ISP bandwidth in MY network and 2MB in my family's network.
If I use a dual-wan router, Will it "combine" it outputting 5MB for all the computers connected to this router?
If this is the case, What if my brother is downloading at full capacity and I try to surfm I may not get the 3MB I'm paying because he will eat all the bandwidth with his download.
Again, sorry if this is stupid..
m
0
l
September 3, 2012 4:30:00 AM

A dual-wan router can’t literally combine the bandwidth of both ISP connections on behalf of a single request. Using your example, the file would download at either 3MB/s or 2MB/s, not 5MB/s. IOW, the router can't split the download across the available connections. It can only choose one or the other for any given request. But when one connection is busy handling a request, it can switch to the other for the next request. So in the aggregate, you increase your bandwidth to 5MB/s because both are kept busy. Even for browsing, where your browser typically establishes multiple connections to assemble all the elements of the page, it can use both internet connections, thus increasing its efficiency. Of course, the user never sees what’s actually happening, all they know is the internet seems a little more “peppy” today!
m
0
l
September 3, 2012 4:52:36 AM

So you are saying that I will use either one or the other, but when the one i'm using is at it's full capacity, I will start using the other one too for the other requests?
If i'm using 3MB, downloading at full 320kbps, Wouldnt i start downloading at 580?
OR if I start downloading another file, that one will download using the 2MB connection and the first one will download using the 3MB connection. But never combine for a same request, for a same "established connection".

Also, can I configure the router to give MY PC the 3MB connection and the 2MB one to the other computers?
m
0
l
September 3, 2012 5:09:47 AM

negrostmthws said:
So you are saying that I will use either one or the other, but when the one i'm using is at it's full capacity, I will start using the other one too for the other requests?


The way most dual wan routers work is round robin. They simply see a network request come in and blindly send it to the next ISP connection. In that way, it’s a crude but reasonably effective means of load balancing. So they don’t typically load up one connection until it’s “full” and switch to the other (they wouldn’t have any means to know what was “full” anyway). It’s just “use the next connection” and continue.

If i'm using 3MB, downloading at full 320kbps, Wouldnt i start downloading at 580?
OR if I start downloading another file, that one will download using the 2MB connection and the first one will download using the 3MB connection. But never combine for a same request, for a same "established connection". said:
If i'm using 3MB, downloading at full 320kbps, Wouldnt i start downloading at 580?
OR if I start downloading another file, that one will download using the 2MB connection and the first one will download using the 3MB connection. But never combine for a same request, for a same "established connection".


Essentially correct. The dual-wan router can’t “magically” split up a request to download a file across both connections, and then somehow “magically” reassemble it.

Also, can I configure the router to give MY PC the 3MB connection and the 2MB one to the other computers? said:
Also, can I configure the router to give MY PC the 3MB connection and the 2MB one to the other computers?


Depending on upon the sophistication of the router, there may be all kinds of rules you can apply to fine tune it. You may be able to say "any traffic from ip 192.168.1.100 should always use connection X". Or, "if it's after 8:00PM and it's the torrent protocol, use connection Y". IOW, anything is theoretically possible. It just depends on that dual-wan router‘s capabilities. But the absolute simplest implementations just use round robin.
m
0
l
September 3, 2012 2:25:56 PM

Ok, So I will have to save some money because here in Argentina, technology isn't cheap at all. First I will try to link my two connections untill I have the money, imagine, here the cheapest Cisco Dual-wan wifi router costs around U$S 400 (If U$S1 = ARS$ 4,50), or I could configure one of my WRT54G's to distribute wifi connected to a NO-WIFI dual-wan router by ethernet. At least U$S 300.

Thanks again for all the help you gave me.

Regards, Augusto Bachmann
m
0
l
September 3, 2012 2:49:55 PM

Well, I suppose to save money, you could consider a DIY solution using dd-wrt. It might prove pretty tough though if you're not familiar w/ it and Linux in general. In most instances I would only recommend it to true geeks. But in this case, given the enormous costs involved, it might be worth the effort, esp. if one of your WRT54G routers is dd-wrt compatible. However, it would in all likelihood provide only basic round-robin services. If you search Google and YouTube, you’ll find various resources and examples, some better than others.
m
0
l
September 4, 2012 12:36:22 AM

Both of them have WRT54G. So I will continue the search. I think that with a virtual wlan I'm well headed. I will post results when I have them.
Thanks again!
m
0
l
!