CB
join:2008-05-02
Goshen, NY
1 edit |  WRT54G Static Routing
OK, here's the low down. I've got two networks. LAN Network A 192.168.0.1 and LAN Network B 192.168.1.1 How do I get it so both subnets talk to each other? I've found solutions such as putting them on the same subnet but that defeats the purpose of having two networks. I'm sure I can do this via static routing but not sure how to get it working. DHCP is turned on for both of them since they are on two different networks and shouldn't interfere. I have tried setting up a static route to 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.1 on the B network router and I get a error about it not being reachable on the LAN interface even though the cable is connected. I also did the same thing on the A router with the correct IP information as well. Am I doing something wrong or do Linksys routers not like doing actual routing? I've managed to go LAN to WAN (A to B), setting up the B WAN to be with a static within the A's LAN range. The goal I'm looking for is to communicate across subnets both ways. All help is appreciated.
EDIT: Subject change. |
|
CB
join:2008-05-02
Goshen, NY | Oh come on! There has to be someone out there that knows how to do this. |
|
Bill_MI
Bill In Michigan
Premium,MVM
join:2001-01-03
Royal Oak, MI
4 edits | You got my head spinning... so I deleted a post where I made a lot of assumptions.
How exactly are these two networks connected together? Simple wire (ethernet) bridge LAN-to-LAN? |
|
devicemanage
Premium
join:2002-03-16
Chalfont, PA | you need a layer 3 switch. |
|
CB
join:2008-05-02
Goshen, NY | reply to Bill_MI
Yes LAN to LAN. Although I've done it LAN-to-WAN before and that worked but broadcasts don't get routed across the subnet because NAT gets in the way. This is on a WRT54G and WRT54G2 by the way if that helps. |
|
Bill_MI
Bill In Michigan
Premium,MVM
join:2001-01-03
Royal Oak, MI
 ·Comcast
1 edit | By definition they are in the same broadcast domain/wire. You mention they both have DHCP servers and that means the two DHCP servers are racing each other for any new client since DHCP starts with an ethernet (not IP) broadcast.
In such a case, the *router* isn't usually the answer to bridging an ethernet to the same ethernet. Between two different ethernets, sure, but not the same one. They stay separate because that's the way it's designed.
If someone wants to stab at having a router take a range of addresses and place them back on the LAN interface they came from, basically handling ARP, please jump in and be counted. It seems to be a waste of router resources.
I use what I've seen called "multi-homing" all the time. Any PC can be on both networks by assigning two IPs, one in each network. The routing table in that PC takes care of itself. No router is involved, just switches. One problem: DHCP cannot be involved. Static only. |
|
CB
join:2008-05-02
Goshen, NY
| OK...well let me go into further detail. Make you can figure out the problem.
Network A (WRT54G)
WAN IP: ISP
Subnet Mask: ISP
Default Gateway: ISP
LAN IP: 192.168.0.1
Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0
Mode: Gateway
Network B (WRT54G2)
LAN IP: 192.168.1.1
Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0
Mode:Router
Both connected to each other from LAN-LAN
With this setup with both static routes on the WRT54G router pointing to the LAN on the WRT54G2 and vice versa, it...everything appears to stop working including Internet. Only LAN access of the second network works. Network A continues to work as always without any problems. When Network B is in Gateway mode and has a WAN IP set in the range of Network and a LAN IP in a different subnet then the WAN address information all works fine. WRT54G2 computers can access WRT54G computers by IP only (NetBIOS doesn't route  ) As far as the other way around...NAT stops it from reaching both with IP and NetBIOS. In this setup the cable goes from LAN-WAN.
What am I doing wrong? I'm trying to connect the two subnets so they can see each other and pass broadcasts back and fourth. |
|
public
join:2002-01-19
Santa Clara, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to CB
said by CB  :OK, here's the low down. I've got two networks. LAN Network A 192.168.0.1 and LAN Network B 192.168.1.1 How do I get it so both subnets talk to each other? »www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/VL···ernet%29 |
|
CB
join:2008-05-02
Goshen, NY | So basically the easiest way to achieve what I'm looking for is VLANs? Interesting stuff. I'll try it out. Thanks! |
|
public
join:2002-01-19
Santa Clara, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| said by CB :So basically the easiest way to achieve what I'm looking for is VLANs? And iptables rules to direct packets between the interfaces. |
|
CB
join:2008-05-02
Goshen, NY | reply to CB
OK...well I fooled around a bit with it and it works good. Everything can get to both subnets by IP but NetBIOS (browsing by computer name) from either to side to either network doesn't work. Do I have to anything else to get that to work? |
|
CB
join:2008-05-02
Goshen, NY | reply to CB
So...how can I get the WRT54G to act as if it were a real router? Is it even possible? It seems this router is nothing more than a NAT box am I wrong? |
|
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
| It is a 'real' router - it has NAT built in but I don't have an idea what you think a 'real' router does that the WRT does not do.
Different routers have different capabilities depending on their price point and expected users. Some real routers may not have some of the functionality of other, more expensive routers or routers with a different expected user.
I think Linksys has some forums at their site - it may be a good thing to ask there.
If the one WRT54G (network A) is a version 1-4 then for it to do what you want it to do - may take a 3rd party firmware like the DDWRT that public posted to a couple of posts up. |
|
CB
join:2008-05-02
Goshen, NY | Is there a way to turn NAT off completely on the WRT54G with stock firmware so it just routes? I know...different then the original post but is there a way to kill NAT? |
|
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County | Doing a search on the net it seems some WRT54G can and other can't. |
|
CB
join:2008-05-02
Goshen, NY
1 edit | WRT54G Static Routing
I guess what I'm asking is two questions really.
How can I get the WRT54G (with or without third party firmware) to act as a real router? As far as I know, real routers don't have built in NAT.
Is there anyway to get rid of NAT and still be able to route between subnets? |
|
SipSizzurp
Fo' Shizzle
Premium
join:2005-12-28
Hilo, HI
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by CB :Is there anyway to get rid of NAT and still be able to route between subnets? Yes, Tomato and DD-WRt both support router mode which disables NAT. You would need to place the router between the two networks using the WAN and LAN ports, and you will need to know how to configure the static routes, which both firmwares also support.
Since you are looking for the functional equivalent of a single network, what is your reason for wanting two IP schemes ? Why don't you run all computers in the same subnet ?
--
I spent most of my money on Women and Beer, and the rest I just wasted ! |
|
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
| reply to CB
YOU need to find out the version of the router to see what version of a 3rd party firmware you can use. WRT54G1-4 are good - version 5-8 are more problematic and I believe the WRT54G2 is not supported by any 3rd party.
The WRT54 is a real router - it just has an added feature for home use rather than buying even more hardware that is generally pretty expensive. |
|
CB
join:2008-05-02
Goshen, NY
| reply to SipSizzurp
said by SipSizzurp :said by CB :Is there anyway to get rid of NAT and still be able to route between subnets? Yes, Tomato and DD-WRt both support router mode which disables NAT. You would need to place the router between the two networks using the WAN and LAN ports, and you will need to know how to configure the static routes, which both firmwares also support. Since you are looking for the functional equivalent of a single network, what is your reason for wanting two IP schemes ? Why don't you run all computers in the same subnet ? Well I've got a Router mode on both the WRT54G and WRT54G2. My current setup right now is as follows:
WRT54G is connected to the WRT54G2 from LAN to WAN. This makes the WRT54G2 WAN port part of the WRT54G LAN. The WRT54G LAN is the 192.168.0.x network. The WRT54G2 LAN network is the 192.168.1.x network. With this current setup, both routers are in Gateway mode. Both routers can access the Internet. Both routers have DHCP on. Computers on the 192.168.1.x network can access computers on the 192.168.0.x network by IP but not by name (NetBIOS names) since NetBIOS (based on my research) isn't routable. As far as the 192.168.0.x network accessing computers on the 192.168.1.x network, it can be done but only with that machine being in DMZ, which means only one can be accessed at a time.
Now...if I was to change the WRT54G2 to the Router mode and keep DHCP turned on and connected from WAN to LAN, nothing except 192.168.1.x network browsing works. The Internet doesn't work either. I even tried adding a static route to the WRT54G2 like this:
Destination LAN IP: 192.168.0.0
Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0
Default Gateway: 192.168.0.1
It doesn't work at all. As for the WRT54G, it doesn't get effected by this change. |
|
SipSizzurp
Fo' Shizzle
Premium
join:2005-12-28
Hilo, HI
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | That is all fine and good, and is the behaviour you would expect with that configuration. You still did not answer my question, even though I explained to you how to accomplish your objective. What you are asking to do is something sufficiently advanced that you are not going to get a direct answer for it. Kinda like "If you have to ask what the price is, then it is going to be too much".
Either you know what you want to do and already have the Linux and IPtables kahunas to do it, or you need to explain the objective so we can help you with a workable solution.
Edit - So, let me clarify my question... "Why in the Sam Hell don't you want to put all of the computers in the same subnet ?"
--
I spent most of my money on Women and Beer, and the rest I just wasted ! |
|
