Network trouble with multiple Routers

[mephisto_007]

Guyz I am having some real issue right now, after introducing a new Wireless Router for the conference the current network suddenly gone bad (Internet running slow, and won't work in some case - but if I disconnect/unplug the new Wireless Router everything is back in business)

Here is my network infrastructure.

The weird things is I got very good signal from New Wireless Router and able to ping most sites but having problem with browser won't loading the page. Also old network tense to lose it connectivity sometime able to use the net and some other time it won't and like I had mention before if I disconnect the new Wireless Router everything back to normal. The real question is, what did I do wrong please help me

 

[DelJo63]

With that topology (wiring), I would make sure both wireless routers were
at the opposing ends of the channels; one on channel-1, the other on channel-11.

Set different SSIDs

Make sure ALL routers have the latest firmware
and ALL systems do too. It often makes a difference.

How many systems are on the downlink side of the HUB? You might find
better thruput and more reliability by using a switch.

Hey! Just noticed that the new wireless is attached to the modem-- what gives,
Don't tell me one is via rj45 and the other is USB; this doesn't work!
Move # 2 router to a lan port on router #1,
wireless#1(lan) --->wireless#2(lan) not the WAN!
make it an Access Point and disable DHCP on #2

 

[mephisto_007]

Hi,

There are quite afew systems on network #1, more than 10 systems connected diasy chain hub by hub, (4 hubs is using on network #1) I am not sure but people told me that newer HUB nowaday is like a switch or perhap what must I say to them if I ask for a switch and instead they gave me a Hub and said they're the same?, that happened to me with my last Hub's purchased.

Both wireless routers is attached to the modem (via RJ45, no USB) so they both have different network (I don't want wireless client on wireless #2 to access network #1, not sure if this is correct)

I'm just wondering could it be the IP address that I have assign to the router? or is it correct?

 

[DelJo63]

Hi,
There are quite afew systems on network #1, more than 10 systems connected diasy chain hub by hub, (4 hubs is using on network #1) ... and said they're the same?, that happened to me with my last Hub's purchased.

sorry, they are quite different! There's a lot of traffic on Ethernet
and a hub just duplicates it all to every port attach. A switch will forward traffic
ONLY to the proper port for the system that needs it. That's 9/10% savings
for your ten downstream systems

Both wireless routers is attached to the modem (via RJ45, no USB) so they both have different network (I don't want wireless client on wireless #2 to access network #1, not sure if this is correct)

The are different by virtue of the addresses, not the physical wiring layout.

I'm just wondering could it be the IP address that I have assign to the router? or is it correct?

When it all works correctly, you control access from net-1 to net-2 via the
firewall on all systems
(yes you need a set of new rules for each client)

I think you can make the new router into an Access Point and cause to to
dish out different addresses or a split address range ...

Nodsu, Comments?

 

[Samstoned]

thats what you need to make it function downstream make it a switch or (access point)
disable dhcp in wirreless router
give it a sub net ip of say 192.168.1.200 mask 255.255.255.0
these numbers based on router ip of 192.168.1.1

 

[Nodsu]

Hum.. So the modem is a router device too? (It apparently has an IP address and several LAN ports). Should I say yet again, that you should have used (a) wireless access point(s) instead of (a) router(s)?

It would help if you posted the exact IP configuration of the modem and both plain routers. This includes WAN and LAN side IP addresses (or "automatic"), netmasks (or "automatic") and gateways (or "automatic").

 

[mephisto_007]

You're correct, the modem is also a wireless router device so can it's be an issue?

Below are their IP address

Modem

Wireless Router (#1)

Wireless Router (#2 new installed)
Has the same configuration as Router #1 except its IP address is 192.168.0.1

I'm looking forward for a solution from you guyz.

I have another question, what is the maximum of HUB can be used in a network which connected through a router without much noise/interfer etc etc?

 

[Nodsu]

OK.

The modem is in bridge mode, so it's not acting as a router at the moment.

The two routers ought to have different WAN IP addresses. If they both have 203.223.35.225, then that is most certainly an issue. Give the other one 203.223.35.226 for example. Of course, you have to tell your ISP that you want to use two IP addresses.

If you have only one public IP, then you could configure the modem as a router and have it share this one public IP to the two wireless routers.

The LAN side IPs of the wireless routers are pretty much irrelevant..

 

[DelJo63]

>what is the maximum of HUB can be used in a network which connected
>through a router without much noise/interfer etc etc?

that's known as a capacity planning issue. the hub per se is not the problem,
but rather how much traffic can a single subnet carry without major degradation?

Ethernet is a contention network by design, meaning any output is written to
the NIC w/o concern Is it already busy? This results in a real thruput of about
70% of the rated NIC card, eg a 10mb card can carry 7mb without going into
error recovery, a 100mb runs at 70mb.

This is an advantage for the switch; it only forwards to the specific system,
allowing all others attached to see nothing of that flow. If we assume
10 systems on a switch, all ten can run 70mb at the same time without error
recovery, while a hub will choke due to the 700mb attempt on a 10mb nic;
in fact, the hub will choke with just two systems attempting 70mb each.

So, whenever you fan-out the wiring with nested devices, always favor
switch -- switch -- switch

 

[mephisto_007]

OK.

The modem is in bridge mode, so it's not acting as a router at the moment.

The two routers ought to have different WAN IP addresses. If they both have 203.223.35.225, then that is most certainly an issue. Give the other one 203.223.35.226 for example. Of course, you have to tell your ISP that you want to use two IP addresses.

If you have only one public IP, then you could configure the modem as a router and have it share this one public IP to the two wireless routers.

The LAN side IPs of the wireless routers are pretty much irrelevant..

I just called my ISP and they have informed me that they're only provided us with only 1 WAN IP address and if we wants them to come and reconfigure the modem there will be an extra charge plus they wouldn't let me peak at what they did. So could you guide me step by step on how to reconfigure the modem to handle the other router?
ie: if the modem act as a router will its Local IP address be 192.168.1.1 and the other 2 router Local IP 192.168.1.2, 192.168.1.3 and so on? will the 1st router still be able to communicate with the 2nd router?

 

[mephisto_007]

jobeard

Thank alot that's really informative...

 

[DelJo63]

I just called my ISP and they have informed me that they're only provided us with only 1 WAN IP
... So could you guide me step by step on how to reconfigure the modem to handle the other router?

This is typical, so don't go crazy on this.
A router has a NAT feature that will solve your problem. The ISP connection
will always be a single address, but NAT will allow your systems to piggyback
it and get replies (like you're already doing). You only need to keep the
new systems segregate from the old.

you already have

modem(192.168.1.1)--(192.168.1.2)router(192.168.2.1)--hub-- other wired systems
                                                  |
                                                  + ----- other wireless systems

your desire for the second router is to segregate a third group of systems (not shown)
from the existing ones. I assume you may want file/print sharing(FS) on the
new systems and to prohibit access from the existing -- there is a way --
control the firewalls on the new systems.

1. inventory the MAC addresses of all systems (new + old)
2. make static addresses for all existing systems (eg: addresses > 192.168.2.100 using their MACs)
3. make static addresses for all new systems (eg: addresses starting from 192.168.2.10 using their MACs)
4. get a good firewall (aka Comodo) for all NEW systems
5. config all New Systems + Comodo to control FS
   (eg allow tcp/udp source ip 192.168.2.10-192.168.2.30 ports 137,139,445)

and btw; you can swap any hub for a switch and anytime without changing
any other configuration

 

[mephisto_007]

modem(192.168.1.1)--(192.168.1.2)router(192.168.2.1)--hub-- other wired systems
|
+ ----- other wireless systems



Hi, by looking at the diagram which router should the NAT be apply (I have nerver done NAT before) I pressume the MODEM is still untouch (as bridge), ROUTER #1 is configured with NAT and ROUTER #2 is attached to ROUTER #1 through LAN port? please correct me if I'm wrong...

 

[Nodsu]

OK. Ignoring all of the above (you guys seem to be talking about different things)..

You can stack either 4 or 2 levels of hubs. The total number is irrelevant. So make sure that between any client and the router, there are no more than 2 or 4 hubs.

I don't have access to your modem, so I have no clue about what configuration options you have available.

Now, you want the people on the second network not to be able to access the first one. This means that we have to daisy-chain the routers so that they all are doing NAT.

Things would look like this:
(we ignore the modem IP, since it's irrelevant to the network setup and used only for managament)

Connect the router that is hosting the restricted clients (router2) to the modem using the WAN port. Set the WAN IP to your public IP address. Set the LAN IP range to whatever you like.
Connect the router that is hosting the trusted users (router1) to the lan port of router2. Configure the WAN interface of router1 to either obtain IP configuration automatically or statically to fit the LAN configuration of router2. Configure the LAN side of router1 to have an IP range different from the LAN side of router2.

You would have: modem--router2--router1--hubs

(This is a very ugly setup!)


If you figure out a way to configure your modem to act as a router, then you can connect your network like you had in mind or even optimise a bit more, connecting the LAN side of router2 to the modem (and disabling DHCP).

 

[mephisto_007]

I've got both router to work now, thank you guyz so much for this...

By the way here is how I did it, Modem still untouch (as bridge) ---> Router #1 (WAN = ISP provided, LAN 192.x.x.2) -----> Router #2 attached to Router #1 through LAN port (WAN = 192.x.x.3, LAN 10.x.x.x) now it worked

 

[DelJo63]

Very good! With your modem in bridge mode, you can ONLY have one device
(ie router) directly attached. Everything else will be on the LAN side of that router.

As for 'access from one side or the other', if one of the OLD systems can ping
any of the new systems, then the firewalls on the new will need to block the old.
If they can not ping, then both sides are hidden and inaccessible to the other