Topic 'WRT54G Static Routing' in forum 'Networking' - dslreports.com

WRT54G Static Routing

Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:00:13 EDT

CB0 posted : OK...this is going to blow your mind. I'm now working with a three routers setup. 192.168.0.1 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.2.1. 192.168.0.1 is connected to the 192.168.1.1 and is running in gateway mode. 192.168.1.1 is connected to the LAN port of 192.168.0.1 and connects to the WAN port. 192.168.1.1 is running in Gateway mode so it is doing NAT. 192.168.2.1 is connected to the LAN port of 192.168.1.1 and connects to the WAN port as well. 192.168.2.1 is running in router mode. 192.168.1.1 has a static route set for 192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.254 Guess what...it works! In this case that would only indicate to me that the DD-WRT firmware will translate any inside subnets where the Linksys will only translate its own LAN subnet? The DD-WRT firmware is on the 192.168.1.1 router. If that's the case, I'll just move the DD-WRT router to the modem and connect my WRT54G2 /w stock firmware to it and just re-correct the static routes and it should work. What do you think?

WRT54G Static Routing

Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:15:43 EDT

CB0 posted : Just wanted to give everyone a update here that was helping me with my post. :) Still no luck yet but I'm working on it. I've been making some posts in the DD-WRT forum and I'm still working on finding a answers. Keep out on the look out for me and let me know if you figure anything out. I also made a post in the Linskys forum regarding the NAT translation issues.

WRT54G Static Routing

Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:52:39 EDT

CB0 posted : I'm sorry, I didn't write that correctly. I meant to say that the cable plugs into a port on the switch of the router (w/ DD-WRT installed) or a switch that supports VLAN. :) My only mission now is to figure out how to add a NAT rule to the DD-WRT router to allow it to translate subnets besides it's own.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sun, 25 Jan 2009 06:19:08 EDT

jza80 posted :

said by CB0:

From there a cable goes from that into a VLAN switch uplink port. Then each port is given a seperate subnet and cable runs from that port to the uplink port on the switch the VLAN belongs to?

Theres no such thing as a VLAN switch, but VLANs can be configured on switches (usually managed switches).

Each port on a switch does not have to be configured with its own subnet/vlan.

Switch ports that carry vlan(s) from one switch to another or from a switch to a router are called trunks/trunk ports/trunk links. Ports on a switch can be configured as a access port or trunk port.

.
.

If you look at the diagram of the network i've created, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Each switch (SW1 and SW2) is configured with 2 vlans (vlan 10 and vlan 20). Both switches also have a computer on vlan 10 and vlan 20.

vlan 10 = 192.168.1.0/24
vlan 20 = 192.168.2.0/24

The switches are connected together with a trunk (port 24 on each switch) that carries vlan 10 and 20.

Port 1 on SW1 is then trunked to a router (R1) so that both vlans (vlan 10 and vlan 20) can be routed.

Computers on vlan 10 (192.168.1.0/24) can talk to computers on vlan 20 (192.168.2.0/24) and vise versa, since the router is configured to route between both vlans.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:23:54 EDT

CB0 posted : Awesome. Yes you're are correct, switches do separate collision domains as well. Well I thank everyone for there help with this situation and if the mods wish to close this thread you may since the issue at hand here deserves a new thread in the Linksys forum. I started a new topic on the issue at hand here: »[DD-WRT] Network Address Translation (NAT) Issue

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:29:24 EDT

tubbynet posted :

said by CB0:

192.168.1.x cannot be translated by NAT on the 192.168.0.x so it never leaves the house...ahahahahaha. I guess I can believe that. It does sound obvious now that I think about it

right, which is why i showed my route-map from my router. while you don't need to understand the principles of the command structure, etc. you can see that i needed to specify the networks i wanted to translate, and then tell the router to translate them. your router comes preloaded to translate the lan network and nothing else. some could consider this a limitation of the device, but for ~99% of the people out there, this solution will suffice and the other 1% will run a third party firmware or purchase a router that you can configure (juniper, cisco, zyxel, etc).

said by CB0:

1. Routers seperate broadcast and collision domains.

close. routers do separate collision domains, but that can be achieved with a switch. while this data point used to be pertinent in the days of csma/cd wireline networking, this isn't too big of an issue anymore (as most installations will have switches, not hubs). about the only time you will have csma/cd networking is in the realm of wireless, where everything is half-duplex networking (hence 54meg is really only ~26meg nominal throughput), but the wireless transmission algorithms are a little more advanced than the old csma/cd days of shared bus networking.

said by CB0:

2. VLANs is the best solution for what I want to do.

without knowing exactly what you are trying to do or why you are trying to do it...yes :D

at least i could put an end to the confusion and get you pointed on the path towards a solution.

q.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:55:57 EDT

CB0 posted : OK...now I think I really get it. :p What you're saying is...the request makes it to 192.168.0.1 and then...nothing, it doesn't translate and just gets stuck. In other words...192.168.1.x cannot be translated by NAT on the 192.168.0.x so it never leaves the house...ahahahahaha. :D I guess I can believe that. It does sound obvious now that I think about it. So pretty much I've learned a few things from this topic:

1. Routers seperate broadcast and collision domains.
2. VLANs is the best solution for what I want to do.
3. I still have a lot to learn.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:51:45 EDT

tubbynet posted :

said by CB0:

OK. So I really don't get the point why routers even exist at all then.

because they make path decisions based on logical (layer-3, ip) addressing. a router is *required* to pass traffic between vlans (or subnets, depending on how you want to look at it). however, you are getting confused because the lines between routers and switches is becoming more and more blurred with the advent of high-speed wireline switching. in fact, if you receive an ethernet handoff from your isp, you could put it into a cisco catalyst 4500/6500 with a supervisor module and never need a traditional "router". the catalyst switches have a high enough packet throughput and switching backplane that you will never notice a difference if you let your switch handle your routing.

said by CB0:

I see what's going on in terms of the second router. The first router is returning the ping responses back to 192.168.0.254 Once it gets there, the router gets lost because it doesn't know what to do with it. Now I think I get it.

nope. not quite.
if that were true, then you couldn't ping the gateway from a client behind router *b*.
as i have stated before, router *a* does nat/pat translation (wikipedia link here). router *a* won't do translation for just anybody, only the devices residing on his local lan subnet. because the clients behind router *b* aren't _in_ router *a*'s lan subnet, it will not translate them out to the internet.
again, you will need to brush up on your understanding because you are missing some simple elements to everything.

q.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:49:34 EDT

SipSizzurp posted :

said by CB0:

OK. So I really don't get the point why routers even exist at all then.

That is what everybody is trying to figure out. All you really need are a bunch of hubs.
--
I spent most of my money on Women and Beer, and the rest I just wasted !

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:31:31 EDT

CB0 posted : I see what's going on in terms of the second router. The first router is returning the ping responses back to 192.168.0.254 Once it gets there, the router gets lost because it doesn't know what to do with it. ;) Now I think I get it.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:13:48 EDT

CB0 posted : OK. So I really don't get the point why routers even exist at all then.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:05:38 EDT

tubbynet posted : that depends on what your definition of "network" is. if you are defining it as a distinct layer-3 ip address boundary, then no. if you are defining it as a geographical location where are devices are interconnected through ethernet, then yes.

in your case, one linksys wrt54g running dd-wrt will suit your needs just fine. you will just need to implement the use of vlans.

q.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:54:08 EDT

CB0 posted : So what you're saying is that...one router per network or...? I think what you're trying to say is that the average network has one router which gets connected to the Internet source. From there a cable goes from that into a VLAN switch uplink port. Then each port is given a seperate subnet and cable runs from that port to the uplink port on the switch the VLAN belongs to?

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:45:47 EDT

tubbynet posted : yes. it is impractical (or even unwanted) to place routers everywhere.
while it is not best practice (due to the fact that broadcasts still occur within a vlan), it is possible to have a computer on one end of the network on the same vlan as a computer on the other end of the network (using vlan trunks). however, more often than not, vlans are defined by geographic locations (i.e. floor 1 has a vlan, floor 2 has a vlan, etc) or by purpose (i.e. data, voice, etc).

q.

WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:42:47 EDT

CB0 posted : So VLANs are how doing what I want do happens? Is this how they segment a network in business world?

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:33:02 EDT

tubbynet posted : because you have a "router" that is passing packets between layer-3 ip addresses (and it is aware of where to send each), traffic flow will not be interrupted. you are doing what you wanted to do with two routers, on one.

said by CB0:

I knew exactly how the worked before you even mentioned all this

may want to brush up on your understanding a little ;-)

q.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:30:24 EDT

CB0 posted : What about accessing each VLAN subnet by IP address...will that work or same issue?

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:29:13 EDT

tubbynet posted :

said by sunny8294:

said by CB0:

:) Now...here's a interesting question, will broadcasts pass between the VLANs?

thats the point of a vlan. it defines a broadcast domain which is smaller than that defined by a local switch.

q.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:25:32 EDT

sunny8294 posted :

said by CB0:

:) Now...here's a interesting question, will broadcasts pass between the VLANs?

No
--
.:: Sunny ::.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:18:50 EDT

CB0 posted : Oh no, I know exactly what you're saying about the VLANs. I knew exactly how that worked before you even mentioned all this but still useful and keeps the knowledge fresh. Basically what you're saying that each VLAN basically becomes another subnet with it's own DHCP server, basically emulating the ports that belong to it as if it was it's own router with it's own DHCP server. :) Now...here's a interesting question, will broadcasts pass between the VLANs?

EDIT: Spelling.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:12:06 EDT

tubbynet posted : and i wasn't insinuating that i was angry. i was merely pointing out that your problems are *not* from the soho router. it is from the the soho router's gateway operating mode that is based on default settings of how it should work for the majority of people. in this case, the lack of support for additional subnet translation is your problem.

you may be able to ask your question in the unix forum and ask about some iptables rules for nat on dd-wrt. i'm sure there is a way to modify those rules. i am just unfamiliar with a way to do that. i know cisco ios and a little bit of junos. not much for linux-type firewall rules.

now, onto dd-wrt...
when you create another vlan on your router, you are essentially creating an svi (switched virtual interface). while this may be a cisco term, the definition is appropriate here. follow me on this (somewhat) abstract path.

when you are dealing with routing and switching, you don't just have physical "interfaces" but virtual ones as well. these virtual interfaces are configured the same as physical ones. generally, your router will have physical interfaces that are configured with ip address information, but they can directly deal with layer-3 addressing.
switchports on the other hand can't really interpret these layer-3 addresses (as they were designed to only function at layer-2). to overcome this, you can create a virtual interface (svi) that has all of the ip address information inside of it and then assign the physical layer-2 switchports to be part of that logical network (its a little confusing, i know). from there, you have certain switchports that are on different subnets, based on their vlan assignments (you tie a layer-2 vlan to a layer-3 svi so that it can be routed).

now, think of it this way....
when you create your "lan" assignments on your router, you give your router an ip address, subnet mask, dns servers, etc. all of this information is stored in an svi and then all of the switchports are placed into the vlan with that corresponding address information.
if you create a *second* vlan, you are creating *another* svi within the same device. you will give that svi ip address, subnet mask, and dns information. you will then place some switchports into that vlan/svi pool.

lets think about this in real terms....
you have two networks, 192.168.1.0/24 (vlan1) and 192.168.2.0/24 (vlan2). on your typical soho router, you have a wan port and four switchports. lets call the ports p1 - p4 (and p0 will be the wan port). if you assign ports p1 and p2 to vlan1 and p3 and p4 to vlan2, plug a device into each port and let the device pull an ip address, p1 and p2's devices will pull a 192.168.1.0/24 address while p3 and p4's devices will pull a 192.168.2.0/24 address. each device will be able to talk to each other and to the internet. you can control the ability to talk by adding iptables rules until you receive the desired effect.

its a little weird, i know, especially if you aren't familiar with multi-layer switching.

here is the wikipedia article that discusses an svi

q.

WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:55:22 EDT

CB0 posted : Sorry, didn't mean to come off mean or angry about it. :huh: I appreciate all of the help. It's been a long topic of back and fourth conversation. I really do appreciate your help. I'm not angry at you or anything. So although VLAN will do it...is there anything I can do on the DD-WRT VLAN to make it translate the second subnet?

EDIT: Spelling. ;)

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:53:01 EDT

tubbynet posted : its not the router mode that is messing up.
the "router" mode is working correctly.

it is the "gateway" mode on your internet router that doesn't know enough to translate the second subnet behind it.

lets give blame where blame is due.

q.

WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:50:33 EDT

CB0 posted : Yeah...someone had posted that link for me when I first started this topic. I'm not sure what else I can do. I just tried configuring the WRT54G (a spare I have) as the second router with the same settings and everything and it still has the same issue. You would think that if this didn't work then the Internet wouldn't work because the routing would be screwed. Yes VLANs will do what I'm looking for with one router but I really wish I could figure out how to do it with these two. It seems sort of pointless to have a Router mode on a SOHO router when it won't work.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:44:31 EDT

tubbynet posted : this is from the dd-wrt wiki. creates two vlans with separate dhcp pools. both access internet. essentially the same as what you are doing here with two devices. they do it in one.

»www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/VL···ernet%29

q.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:26:58 EDT

CB0 posted : That's what I'm trying to avoid. I'm trying to only have one device doing NAT.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:25:36 EDT

tubbynet posted :

said by CB0:

but wouldn't that have the same outcome?

not necessarily. the reason that people use dd-wrt (or other thirdparty firmwares) is that they are more powerful than the stock linksys stuff.
i have not played with dd-wrt in a while. you may need to research if it is even possible. if nothing else, you can set both routers to gateway mode such that your second subnet will be translated into the first subnet, which will be subsequently translated out to the internet. you will be doing a double-nat, but it will work.

q.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:22:56 EDT

CB0 posted : Well...I've got another WRT54G router sitting under my desk with DD-WRT on it that I could re-configure with the same settings but wouldn't that have the same outcome? Oh and the one with DD-WRT would just end up replacing the second router.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:21:50 EDT

tubbynet posted :

said by CB0:

I think what you're trying to say is that the second subnet isn't being translated

exactly.

i assume that you are still wanting to keep stock firmware on your wrt54g. it might be possible using tomato/ddwrt/hyperwrt/openwrt. until then, you may be stuck.

q.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:19:49 EDT

CB0 posted : I still don't get what you're saying. I think what you're trying to say is that the second subnet isn't being translated. I can only turn on RIP for one of both interfaces when in Router mode.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:17:30 EDT

tubbynet posted : i understand that you can't "program" a router to tell it what subnets are behind it using the command line. however, what i am saying is that (by default) the gateway device will only translate its local "lan" subnet out to the internet, but it won't translate the secondary subnet (because it isn't going to translate an ip address it isn't aware of).

my suggestion would be to try and see if you can use rip between the devices (and forgo the static route) as maybe the router will inject the secondary subnet into its translation table.

q.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:15:05 EDT

CB0 posted : I don't think I can do that. All I know is my setup is as follows:

Cable Line -> Cable Mode -> WRT54G -> WRT54G2

I'm a little confused at what you're saying. I'm trying to figure out what I have to do.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:10:27 EDT

tubbynet posted : not sure if that is really the case or not...
highly doubt it because you are not able to *ping* a device by its ip address. this means you have no external connectivity on that subnet out to the internet.

what it appears (to me) is that you have two subnets sitting behind your "gateway" device. that device is supposed to perform nat/pat rules to allow translation out to the internet using the public ip address you are assigned.
however, i am not sure that your router is "aware" of the subnet behind it, and since it is from a subnet that the gateway device is unaware of, it is puking over itself and saying "no".

i'd be curious to see (if you can) find the current nat/pat translations occuring on the gateway router and see if they include anything from the second network. i'm almost positive they don't.

just to illustrate my point, here is my nat rules for my cisco 2811, because nat/pat is not enabled by default on upper end devices, i have to tell it what to translate and how:

ip nat inside source route-map inside_nat0_outbound_routemap interface FastEthernet0/0 overload!ip access-list extended inside_nat0_outbound deny   ip 192.168.189.0 0.0.0.255 host 172.16.189.100 deny   ip 192.168.189.0 0.0.0.255 host 172.16.189.101 deny   ip 192.168.189.0 0.0.0.255 host 172.16.189.102 deny   ip 192.168.189.0 0.0.0.255 host 172.16.189.103 deny   ip 192.168.189.0 0.0.0.255 host 172.16.189.104 deny   ip 192.168.189.0 0.0.0.255 host 172.16.189.105 deny   ip 192.168.189.0 0.0.0.255 host 172.16.189.106 deny   ip 192.168.189.0 0.0.0.255 host 172.16.189.107 deny   ip 192.168.189.0 0.0.0.255 host 172.16.189.108 deny   ip 192.168.189.0 0.0.0.255 host 172.16.189.109 deny   ip host 192.168.100.1 host 172.16.189.100 deny   ip host 192.168.100.1 host 172.16.189.101 deny   ip host 192.168.100.1 host 172.16.189.102 deny   ip host 192.168.100.1 host 172.16.189.103 deny   ip host 192.168.100.1 host 172.16.189.104 deny   ip host 192.168.100.1 host 172.16.189.105 deny   ip host 192.168.100.1 host 172.16.189.106 deny   ip host 192.168.100.1 host 172.16.189.107 deny   ip host 192.168.100.1 host 172.16.189.108 deny   ip host 192.168.100.1 host 172.16.189.109 permit ip 192.168.189.0 0.0.0.255 any permit ip 172.16.189.0 0.0.0.255 any

while its a little hard to understand, i have to deny translations between my vpn subnet and my local subnet, and then permit traffic outbound from my local subnet outbound and my vpn subnet inbound (the last two lines).

at any rate, see what you can find and then post back.

q.

WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:58:45 EDT

CB0 posted : OK...here's some tests for you to take a look at. Maybe you can find to things going wrong here. The device after 192.168.0.1 would be the modem just so you know. It almost looks like DNS on the second router is not resolving or DNS on the computer itself isn't resolving.

Diagnostics done from a client on B:

Tracing route to 4.2.2.2 over a maximum of 30 hops   1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.1  2     1 ms     1 ms     1 ms  192.168.0.1  3     *        *        *     Request timed out. Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=63Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=63Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=63Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=63 Pinging 192.168.1.1 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64 Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=62Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=62Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=62Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=62

Done from Router B itself:

traceroute to 4.2.2.2 (4.2.2.2) ,30 hops max,40 byte packet1 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) <10.0 ms <10.0 ms <10.0 ms2 10.92.128.1 (10.92.128.1) <10.0 ms <10.0 ms 10. 0 ms3 24.164.161.14 (24.164.161.14) <10.0 ms <10.0 ms <10.0 ms4 24.164.160.169 (24.164.160.169) <10.0 ms <10.0 ms <10.0 ms5 24.164.160.78 (24.164.160.78) 10. 0 ms 10. 0 ms 10. 0 ms6 24.29.97.6 (24.29.97.6) <10.0 ms <10.0 ms 10. 0 ms7 4.79.188.113 (4.79.188.113) 10. 0 ms 20. 0 ms <10.0 ms8 4.68.99.158 (4.68.99.158) 10. 0 ms 10. 0 ms <10.0 ms9 4.69.132.97 (4.69.132.97) 10. 0 ms 10. 0 ms 10. 0 ms10 4.69.134.66 (4.69.134.66) 10. 0 ms 10. 0 ms 30. 0 ms11 4.68.97.8 (4.68.97.8) 10. 0 ms 10. 0 ms 10. 0 ms12 4.2.2.2 (4.2.2.2) 10. 0 ms 10. 0 ms 10. 0 ms PING 192.168.0.1 ( 192.168.0.1 ) : 56 data bytes64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=0, ttl=64 times=0. ms64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=1, ttl=64 times=0. ms64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=2, ttl=64 times=0. ms64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=3, ttl=64 times=0. ms64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=4, ttl=64 times=0. ms PING 192.168.1.1 ( 192.168.1.1 ) : 56 data bytes64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=0, ttl=64 times=0. ms64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1, ttl=64 times=0. ms64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=2, ttl=64 times=0. ms64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3, ttl=64 times=0. ms64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=4, ttl=64 times=0. ms PING 192.168.100.1 ( 192.168.100.1 ) : 56 data bytes64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=0, ttl=63 times=0. ms64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=1, ttl=63 times=0. ms64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=2, ttl=63 times=0. ms64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=3, ttl=63 times=0. ms64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=4, ttl=63 times=0. ms

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:21:34 EDT

tubbynet posted : the appropriate question here is, what occurs when you attempt to traceroute to an address outside of your network (4.2.2.2 for example). this should give you an idea of where your routing is falling apart.
do this from a workstation behind router b.

q.

WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:25:42 EDT

CB0 posted : I did as you suggested. This is what my routing tables look like. Ignore the missing destination LAN IP and Gateway on Router A's Routing Table. I blanked it out since it contains my WAN IP information. Does anything look wrong here? Everything on router A and router B can ping each other by IP. Internet continues to work on Router A but there is no Internet on Router B. Router B is set in Router mode...router a is set in Gateway mode. Pinging anything on the Internet from the computers on router B results in nothing but time outs. Pinging anything on the Internet from the ping utility on the router B router itself works perfectly fine. I know it can't be router A since it's Internet is just fine and normal. What's the problem now?

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 13:38:34 EDT

public posted :

said by CB0:

I know, that's my original post when I was trying to figure out the other setup. Now I'm trying to figure out this setup.

subnet is a network
default gateway must be on the same subnet.
Assuming this is what you want, read the ddwrt tutorials on what to enter in the cammands window.

configuration

modem
bridged
lan 192.168.100.1

Router
wan 192.168.100.254 vlan1
wan x.x.x.x public ip vlan1
lan br0, vlan2, vlan3

network a br0
192.168.0.0
255.255.255.0
dhcp on
a to public permit
a to b permit
a to modem permit
a to wireless deny

network b vlan2
192.168.1.0
255.255.255.0
dhcp on
b to public permit
b to a permit
b to modem permit
b to wireless deny

network wireless vlan3
192.168.2.0
255.255.255.0
dhcp on
wireless to public permit
wireless to a deny
wireless to b deny
wireless to modem permit

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 13:05:34 EDT

tubbynet posted : this is being made *much* harder than it really is...especially if the concept "routing" is understood.

first, lets define your (lan) networks (trying to keep with above). let network *a* be on the 192.168.0.0/24 subnet. this gives you a range from 192.168.0.1 - 192.168.0.254 (usable addresses). generally, you will want your router's address at one extreme or the other. for the sake of the argument, let the router have an address of 192.168.0.1.

now, generally you will have a dhcp scope (i like to start mine at .100 and stop it at .149), so you will want to make sure that you have some room for addresses that are *not* in your dhcp scope on router *a* and use it for router *b*'s wan address. as you have grasped from above, the wan of router *b* will need to be in the subnet of router *a*'s lan.
lets assign the wan of router *b* 192.168.0.254 (just so there is _no_ confusion), and make sure that the subnet mask (255.255.255.0) and gateway (192.168.0.1) are set correctly on the router, as well as any dns, etc.

now, lets use a distinct pool for router *b*'s lan pool (192.168.100.0/24). you will assign the typical stuff for the dhcp pool as you would for any other router device. you also have correctly grasped that you will need to put router *b* in router mode.
(as a side note, gateway mode on a consumer device will generally enable such features as a firewall, nat/pat, etc. when in router mode, it will shut these features off, but won't really allow you to use the device as an internet gateway, since you can't manually configure the nat/pat rules.)

now, where you are getting hung up is the static routing, or at least the routing in general. it is important to remember that these devices are *still* routers. the strict definition of a router is a device that will make path determinations based on layer 3 addressing. a router is a device that has the ability to pass a packet between a logical layer-3 (ip address) boundary (i.e. subnets). to get your network to accomplish this, you have one of two options:

(a) static routing. you will need to add a static route on router *a* stating to the effect that any packet destined for 192.168.100.0/24 should be passed to the device at 192.168.0.254, as it will know what to do with it. additionally, you will need a static route on router *b* stating that any packet it doesn't know what to do with (i.e. anything that is not in the .100.0/24 or the .0.0/24 subnet, because _both_ subnets are connected to router *b*) should be passed to 192.168.0.1 (this is generally known as the quad-0 route [0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0] because this is any ip address). this will allow router *b* to pass packets destined for the internet on to router *a*, which knows how to get to the internet (based on dhcp from your isp).

(b) your other option would be to enable rip (its a primitive routing protocol) on each device. this will automatically pass routing information on to each "router capable device" that can interpret rip. the one caveat here is that i am unsure if you can place a consumer router in "gateway" mode to accept rip packets. additionally, you will want to find a way to block rip from being transmitted on the wan interface of router *a*, as you don't want your networks being advertised upstream to your isp.

if need be, i can work up a very simple visio drawing illustrating this design to make it a little clearer. i arbitrarily chose random subnets to make sure that there was (a) no confusion and (b) no chance for fat-fingering the numbers.

now, on to the question posed by SipSizzurp . i do agree that you are complicating matters by introducing a new network. generally, when someone adds a new layer-3 domain, they do it for reasons of filtering. it is much easier to granularly permit/deny access based on an ip address of a device (which can be controlled and logically assigned) rather than the mac (or burned-in) address (which is random based on the organization, etc). if you are using the network for the above reason, all the more power to you. if you are trying to understand routing, i would suggest reading a bit more about how routing works rather than going onto a forum and getting stepped through it. i'll i've really taught you is what to enter into the dialog boxes. otherwise, you are really just complicating matters (case in point, i have a separate subnet (though its done using a layer3 switch and vlans) for my guest wireless pool and i have them filtered in such a way that guest wireless users are unable to access any local resource on my network and they are only able to access http and https protocols outbound to the net).

i hope that this gets you started in the right direction...

q.

WRT54G Static Routing

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:56:53 EDT

CB0 posted :

said by SipSizzurp:

Edit 2 - For the sake of consistency, it looks like you have an error on your "B" router's static route. Shouldn't the first address in the rule be 192.168.1.0 instead of 192.168.0.0 and the second address 192.168.0.0 instead of 192.168.0.1 ? Starting the range at "1" may be clipping off the broadcast IP of .255

If on the second router I make a static route as you suggested, which was:

Destination LAN IP: 192.168.1.0
Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0
Default Gateway: 192.1680.0

I get a message like the one shown in the attachment.

WRT54G Static Routing

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:31:21 EDT

CB0 posted : OK, here's what I figured out and I think what might be causing the problem. It's the fact that NAT is turned off on the WRT54G2 when in router mode. Here's what I think that problem might be. A request for the 192.168.0.0 network gets sent from the WAN IP of 192.168.0.254 to 192.168.0.1. 192.168.0.1 translates 192.168.0.254 to the WAN IP of the router connected to the modem. The request returns to the WAN IP of the modem connected router. The router (192.168.0.1) sends the request back to 192.168.0.254...then what? The router gets lost because it doesn't know what address to send it to next. :huh:

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:46:21 EDT

CB0 posted :

said by SipSizzurp:

Some more info....
»[Wired] Dasidy Chain Two WRT54 Routers

I know, that's my original post when I was trying to figure out the other setup. Now I'm trying to figure out this setup.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:08:56 EDT

CB0 posted : OK, so now both my Net A. and Net B. have a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0 now what do I do? I'm trying to understand what you're saying. I guess I'm trying to route between networks not subnets? Meaning that...with a subnet mask of 255.255.255.128 on the 192.168.0.1 router would make the subnet then next subnet 192.168.0.129? All help is greatly appreciated. :)

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:47:28 EDT

SipSizzurp posted : Some more info....
»[Wired] Dasidy Chain Two WRT54 Routers
--
I spent most of my money on Women and Beer, and the rest I just wasted !

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:43:09 EDT

SipSizzurp posted :

said by CB0:

With keeping it at 192.168.0.6 it allows communication on the inside network for both Net A.

With a subnet of 255.255.255.240 on your LAN A, the only valid IP addresses you have are 192.168.0.241-254 which does not include 192.168.0.6, so that is part of your cluster fuck. Start by opening up both ranges with a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0 unless you are a networking student who is only theoretically running out of address space.
--
I spent most of my money on Women and Beer, and the rest I just wasted !

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:36:37 EDT

CB0 posted : Well I figured that the static route on the WRT54G (Net. A) would have to have a default gateway of 192.168.0.6 since that's the WAN IP of the Net. B router. Which would mean that in order to get to subnet 192.168.1.0 it would have to route to 192.168.0.6 first? If that makes any sense. When I change the static route on the Net. A router to what you suggested, I lose access to the other router and modem address as well as have no Internet. With keeping it at 192.168.0.6 it allows communication on the inside network for both Net A. and B. but prevents Internet for Net. B Internet on Router A keeps chugging as normal.

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:30:15 EDT

SipSizzurp posted : Just a wild guess since I really don't know, but change the 192.168.0.6 in your static route in router A to be 192.168.0.0 since you are routing to the whole subnet. Using .6 may define a routing table starting with that IP address which may be missing something vital. I'm afraid to aks any more questions, but why are you using subnet masks of .240 and .252 ? Even if you did have everything else correct it looks like that would be a cause of a lot of your problems. Why not use the whole range of 255.255.255.0 in each of your subnets ?

Edit 2 - For the sake of consistency, it looks like you have an error on your "B" router's static route. Shouldn't the first address in the rule be 192.168.1.0 instead of 192.168.0.0 and the second address 192.168.0.0 instead of 192.168.0.1 ? Starting the range at "1" may be clipping off the broadcast IP of .255

Like I said, if you don't know what yer doing, this is not exactly the best place to be trying to find out.
--
I spent most of my money on Women and Beer, and the rest I just wasted !

WRT54G Static Routing

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:10:59 EDT

CB0 posted :

said by SipSizzurp:

That is one of my all time favorite songs. I remember what shock it was the first time I saw the video !

There have been a couple of discussions about static routing in the wireless forum over the past few years. You might do a search of that forum with the terms "Static Route". Here is a more recent one that may have something you can use.
»How to link two houses via 802.11n?

I'm taking a look at that link right now. While I look at that...take a look at this picture I made describing my setup. Tell me if you see anything wrong with it. Basically I want to route between subnets so that they can access each other. Can this be done with this setup and if not what do I have to change to make it work?

Re: WRT54G Static Routing

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:48:09 EDT

SipSizzurp posted : That is one of my all time favorite songs. I remember what shock it was the first time I saw the video !

There have been a couple of discussions about static routing in the wireless forum over the past few years. You might do a search of that forum with the terms "Static Route". Here is a more recent one that may have something you can use.
»How to link two houses via 802.11n?
--
I spent most of my money on Women and Beer, and the rest I just wasted !

WRT54G Static Routing

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:32:20 EDT

CB0 posted : I continue to try to get this to work...both with DD-WRT and stock firmware and it refuses. It seems that the only problem is computers on the second subnet (Network B) aren't getting to the Internet at all. Everything else works fine. I don't know what it could be. It's almost like the requests disappear into space. This router...well I think the song proves the point. :D

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUatnbaN···=related

WRT54G Static Routing

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:00:31 EDT

CB0 posted : That's another thing too...when I ping a website, it resolves the DNS but the pings just time out. When I ping a website from the either router itself it works perfectly fine.

All I get when I do it from a computer on the WRT54G2 is this:

Pinging www.l.google.com [64.233.169.147] with 32 bytes of data:

Request Timed Out
Request Timed Out
Request Timed Out
Request Timed Out