Re: wireless router off a normal router

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 07:11:48 +0100, Sander Tekelenburg
<user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>In article <p2kfo1df365sa0dq1d94ff6b0p93kmedfn@xxxxxxx>,
> Phil Earnhardt <pae@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 05:57:39 -0800, nospam <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >to hang the wireless router off the main router:
>> >
>> >set the local ip address of the wireless router to use an unused ip on
>> >your lan (i.e. 192.168.1.222). be SURE this is outside any dhcp range
>> >that the main router uses (you don't want a conflict) and that it is on
>> >the same subnet as your current lan.
>> >
>> >turn OFF dhcp on the wireless router (you do not want more than one
>> >dhcp server on the same lan).
>
>[...]
>
>> What I don't understand is why it is needed. How is it that the main
>> router is cognizant of whether or not the wireless router is even
>> running DHCP? What evils could happen with cascading routers -- that
>>seems to be the config I have at home with my Airport Express
>>connected to a Linksys router, and it works just fine.
>>
>>An explanation and/or a pointer to a FM that discusses such things
>>would be appreciated. Thanks.
>
>If you have multiple DHCP servers distributing addresses in the same
>range on the same subnet, you'll have some problems :)

That really wasn't the question. From a management perspective, I
completely agree -- it would be insane to use the same block. I have
no plans to do port forwarding; I'm not exactly sure what would nail
you even if you were to use the same block of IP addresses on both
servers -- as long as both were providing NAT services for their
clients.

The root of my question: what constitutes the "same subnet"? It would
seem that a router running DHCP and NAT services has essentially
created a distinct subnet.

The person I'm working with said that he was told he "couldn't have
routing" on his wireless; I don't understand why. But I couldn't
configure it; I'm going to turn off DHCP and NAT on the wireless. I
don't understand why that shouldn't work.

--phil

> If you make sure
>they don't, then it can work just fine, but I'd still only do that if
>you are very aware of what it is exactly that you're doing. If you're
>not, you'll get very confused when for instance you take your first stab
>at port forwarding without realising that for each instance you may well
>need to configure both routers.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [SLE] DHCP vs Static IP - SUSE 10.0
    ... I just want NFS and Internet access to work. ... It appears that the router is also a DHCP server. ... is there any reason to have a subnet with static IPs? ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: DHCP Dual Network Setup
    ... able to detect the DHCP servive on the router even if is is on another ... to detect the active DHCP servers on your network. ... that tool from your internal subnet so can SBS ... ... I have a Wireless internet router on on the internet ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Problem with DNS on SBS and on router
    ... to a different subnet. ... Then disable DHCP on the router, ... The SBS server will then route between the SBS LAN ... In my installation there is a router with DHCP connecting my ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Noob basic network segmenting help
    ... subnet per floor to allow more hosts and more management of traffic ... If I put a router on each floor for each new subnet what are the ... implications for DHCP, domain controllers, etc? ... It'd be cheaper to use one Router with enough Interfaces for each segment. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.networking)
  • RE: 2 x DC, 2 sites and NT4 servers same domain HELP
    ... Your understanding is correct that you can add second DC in another subnet ... as long as there is router can provide the route. ... subnet to provide DHCP function for 192.168.86.0 scope will be ... better than using the original DHCP server in 192.168.82.0 subnet. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.migration)