Cable Modem -> hub -> 2 wireless routers Will this work?

I'm trying to set up a mixed wireless system. Router 1 will be only a
'g' receiver and router 2 will be only a 'b' receiver. Someone I was
talking to says that the modem will not be able to deal with 2 WAN
connections. All I am trying to do is have a simple setup...no
firewall before the routers, etc. since I will have these capabilities
within the routers.

On 2 Dec 2004 15:12:19 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (John) wrote:

>I'm trying to set up a mixed wireless system. Router 1 will be only a
>'g' receiver and router 2 will be only a 'b' receiver. Someone I was
>talking to says that the modem will not be able to deal with 2 WAN
>connections. All I am trying to do is have a simple setup...no
>firewall before the routers, etc. since I will have these capabilities
>within the routers.

Won't work unless you have two routeable IP addresses from your ISP.
Each router needs a unique IP address on the WAN side.

However, all is not lost. You can "convert" one of the routers into
an access point by:
1. Ignoring the WAN port
2. disabling the DHCP server.
3. Assigning an IP address to the LAN side of the access point
that is NOT the same as the other router. For example, if
the "g" router is on 192.168.1.1, then the access point
should be on 192.168.1.2.
Then, just plug the LAN port of the "b" access point, into the LAN
port of the "g" router. You may need to build or buy an ethernet
crossover cable to do this.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
# (E-Mail Removed)
# 831.421.6491 digital_pager (E-Mail Removed) AE6KS

Here is my experience, which is not that complicated. But, I had 2 wireless
routers connected lan port to lan port with dhcp off on router 2 and
different ssids on both. I was able to connect gs to router 1 SSID and Bs to
router 2 SSID. This acted as a seemless network. Now, if I took router 1
Lan port and put it into a Wan port on router 2, I had a totally separate
network on different subnets with the same gateway and had Gs on one and Bs
on the other with separate SSIDs
..

So talk to me..........Am I a disallusionist or just a dreamer.............



"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 2 Dec 2004 15:12:19 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (John) wrote:
>
> >I'm trying to set up a mixed wireless system. Router 1 will be only a
> >'g' receiver and router 2 will be only a 'b' receiver. Someone I was
> >talking to says that the modem will not be able to deal with 2 WAN
> >connections. All I am trying to do is have a simple setup...no
> >firewall before the routers, etc. since I will have these capabilities
> >within the routers.
>
> Won't work unless you have two routeable IP addresses from your ISP.
> Each router needs a unique IP address on the WAN side.
>
> However, all is not lost. You can "convert" one of the routers into
> an access point by:
> 1. Ignoring the WAN port
> 2. disabling the DHCP server.
> 3. Assigning an IP address to the LAN side of the access point
> that is NOT the same as the other router. For example, if
> the "g" router is on 192.168.1.1, then the access point
> should be on 192.168.1.2.
> Then, just plug the LAN port of the "b" access point, into the LAN
> port of the "g" router. You may need to build or buy an ethernet
> crossover cable to do this.
>
>
> --
> # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
> # 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> # (E-Mail Removed)
> # 831.421.6491 digital_pager (E-Mail Removed) AE6KS

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 18:47:58 -0600, "Airhead"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Here is my experience, which is not that complicated. But, I had 2 wireless
>routers connected lan port to lan port with dhcp off on router 2 and
>different ssids on both. I was able to connect gs to router 1 SSID and Bs to
>router 2 SSID. This acted as a seemless network. Now, if I took router 1
>Lan port and put it into a Wan port on router 2, I had a totally separate
>network on different subnets with the same gateway and had Gs on one and Bs
>on the other with separate SSIDs
>.
>
>So talk to me..........Am I a disallusionist or just a dreamer.............

Well, you're also one of them "top posters" that drives me insane.
Actually, that's not a major accomplishment as I was already insane
before you started top posting.

You're not dis-illusioned or dreaming. What you describe works. The
way I described it, using one router and one access point, you get a
single network with two ways to get to it via wireless.

Your scheme is two seperate wireless networks. The first wireless
router, which I arbitrarily call the "g" router, connects to the
internet and uses NAT to assign a network of 192.168.1.xxx to the
wireless clients. The 2nd router, which I'll call the "b" router,
connects its WAN port to the LAN port of the "g" router. The "b"
router will have a WAN side IP address of perhaps 192.168.1.2, and a
LAN side IP block of 192.168.123.xxx. Depending on the netmask on the
WAN side of the "b" router, neither wireless LAN will be able to see
the other. I use this for coffee shops, where I don't want the public
LAN to see the office computahs.
If the netmask were the usual 255.255.255.0, then the wireless clients
on the "b" router will be able to see the wireless clients on the "g"
router, but not the other way around.



>"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On 2 Dec 2004 15:12:19 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (John) wrote:
>>
>> >I'm trying to set up a mixed wireless system. Router 1 will be only a
>> >'g' receiver and router 2 will be only a 'b' receiver. Someone I was
>> >talking to says that the modem will not be able to deal with 2 WAN
>> >connections. All I am trying to do is have a simple setup...no
>> >firewall before the routers, etc. since I will have these capabilities
>> >within the routers.
>>
>> Won't work unless you have two routeable IP addresses from your ISP.
>> Each router needs a unique IP address on the WAN side.
>>
>> However, all is not lost. You can "convert" one of the routers into
>> an access point by:
>> 1. Ignoring the WAN port
>> 2. disabling the DHCP server.
>> 3. Assigning an IP address to the LAN side of the access point
>> that is NOT the same as the other router. For example, if
>> the "g" router is on 192.168.1.1, then the access point
>> should be on 192.168.1.2.
>> Then, just plug the LAN port of the "b" access point, into the LAN
>> port of the "g" router. You may need to build or buy an ethernet
>> crossover cable to do this.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
# (E-Mail Removed)
# 831.421.6491 digital_pager (E-Mail Removed) AE6KS

"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 18:47:58 -0600, "Airhead"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Here is my experience, which is not that complicated. But, I had 2
wireless
> >routers connected lan port to lan port with dhcp off on router 2
and
> >different ssids on both. I was able to connect gs to router 1 SSID
and Bs to
> >router 2 SSID. This acted as a seemless network. Now, if I took
router 1
> >Lan port and put it into a Wan port on router 2, I had a totally
separate
> >network on different subnets with the same gateway and had Gs on
one and Bs
> >on the other with separate SSIDs
> >.
> >
> >So talk to me..........Am I a disallusionist or just a
dreamer.............
>
> Well, you're also one of them "top posters" that drives me insane.
> Actually, that's not a major accomplishment as I was already insane
> before you started top posting.
>
> You're not dis-illusioned or dreaming. What you describe works.
The
> way I described it, using one router and one access point, you get a
> single network with two ways to get to it via wireless.
>
> Your scheme is two seperate wireless networks. The first wireless
> router, which I arbitrarily call the "g" router, connects to the
> internet and uses NAT to assign a network of 192.168.1.xxx to the
> wireless clients. The 2nd router, which I'll call the "b" router,
> connects its WAN port to the LAN port of the "g" router. The "b"
> router will have a WAN side IP address of perhaps 192.168.1.2, and a
> LAN side IP block of 192.168.123.xxx. Depending on the netmask on
the
> WAN side of the "b" router, neither wireless LAN will be able to see
> the other. I use this for coffee shops, where I don't want the
public
> LAN to see the office computahs.
> If the netmask were the usual 255.255.255.0, then the wireless
clients
> on the "b" router will be able to see the wireless clients on the
"g"
> router, but not the other way around.

At first I thought you were giving me a complement of being a "Top
Poster" ,,,like good answers

Then I realized you dont like me posting on the top of messages. Just
for you, because I admire your knowledge, I will post on the bottom or
somewhere in between.

So, I am not a net mask guru, would you explain the net mask
issue....I might not want my wife on her B network seeing my G stuff.










>
>
>
> >"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
> >> On 2 Dec 2004 15:12:19 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (John) wrote:
> >>
> >> >I'm trying to set up a mixed wireless system. Router 1 will be
only a
> >> >'g' receiver and router 2 will be only a 'b' receiver. Someone
I was
> >> >talking to says that the modem will not be able to deal with 2
WAN
> >> >connections. All I am trying to do is have a simple setup...no
> >> >firewall before the routers, etc. since I will have these
capabilities
> >> >within the routers.
> >>
> >> Won't work unless you have two routeable IP addresses from your
ISP.
> >> Each router needs a unique IP address on the WAN side.
> >>
> >> However, all is not lost. You can "convert" one of the routers
into
> >> an access point by:
> >> 1. Ignoring the WAN port
> >> 2. disabling the DHCP server.
> >> 3. Assigning an IP address to the LAN side of the access point
> >> that is NOT the same as the other router. For example, if
> >> the "g" router is on 192.168.1.1, then the access point
> >> should be on 192.168.1.2.
> >> Then, just plug the LAN port of the "b" access point, into the
LAN
> >> port of the "g" router. You may need to build or buy an ethernet
> >> crossover cable to do this.
>







>
> --
> # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
> # 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> # (E-Mail Removed)
> # 831.421.6491 digital_pager (E-Mail Removed) AE6KS

> If the netmask were the usual 255.255.255.0, then the wireless clients
> on the "b" router will be able to see the wireless clients on the "g"
> router, but not the other way around.

Ah, gotcha. This is then what I'd like to set up...thinking security
all the way.

The 'b' router is my TIVO router...and less secure. I figure I could
set it up so that if anyone got through it, then they'd only get the
TIVO and the 'net.

The 'g' router is for my computers. It has a better firewall and mac
address checking.

Here is what I'd want...two networks 'b' and 'g'. I want to be able
to see the 'b' with the 'g' network, but not necessarily the other way
'round. That way, I could access the 'b' network with my computers
and fiddle with the TIVO...and I don't see any reason why the TIVO
needs to see my computers...I could add the TIVO mac address to the
list if I need to...but why? I'd also want just the router firewall
protecting each network...don't want to have to punch a hole through
two firewalls if I need to...that's why I thought a hub would be
ideal...just a dumb connection to the net.

Suggestions, solutions?

THANKS GUYS...this is the first time I tried to set up a complicated
network.

John

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 06:27:31 -0600, "Airhead"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>At first I thought you were giving me a complement of being a "Top
>Poster" ,,,like good answers

I never give compliments. See:
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
for why top posting is bad.

>Then I realized you dont like me posting on the top of messages. Just
>for you, because I admire your knowledge, I will post on the bottom or
>somewhere in between.

I'm honored, I think.

>So, I am not a net mask guru, would you explain the net mask
>issue....I might not want my wife on her B network seeing my G stuff.

Ok. Typical two routers in series (double NAT) mess:

LAN #1
WAN===[Router #1]===================[Router #2]=======LAN #2

WAN = xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx WAN = 192.168.1.2
WAN NM = 255.255.255.0 WAN NM = 255.255.255.0
LAN = 192.168.1.1 LAN = 192.168.5.1
IP's = 192.168.1.xxx IP's = 192.168.5.xxx
LAN NM = 255.255.255.0 LN NM = 255.255.255.0

Computers on LAN #1 cannot see any computers on LAN #2.
Computers on LAN #2 can see all computers on LAN #1
Both LAN #1 and LAN #2 can see the internet. The "5" in the
192.168.5.xxx IP block is arbitrary.

If you do NOT want any of the LAN #2 computers to see the computers on
LAN #1, you change the subnet mask on WAN port Netmask on Router #2 so
that it only will "see" Router #1. That would look like his:

WAN = xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx WAN = 192.168.1.2
WAN NM = 255.255.255.0 WAN NM = 255.255.255.252 <===
LAN = 192.168.1.1 LAN = 192.168.5.1
IP's = 192.168.1.xxx IP's = 192.168.5.xxx
LAN NM = 255.255.255.0 LN NM = 255.255.255.0

Digging out my handy subnetmask calculator:
http://www.wildpackets.com/support/downloads
This will allow only two IP address (192.168.1.1 and .2) to be seen by
the WAN port of Router #2 (in addition to the broadcast address of
192.168.1.3). Note that 192.168.1.2 is the WAN IP address of Router
#2 so there is really only one useable IP address. I like to have a
few more IP's to install print servers and shared devices, so I tend
to use 255.255.255.248, which allows 5 useable IP's.


--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 3 Dec 2004 08:35:55 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (John) wrote:

>> If the netmask were the usual 255.255.255.0, then the wireless clients
>> on the "b" router will be able to see the wireless clients on the "g"
>> router, but not the other way around.

>Ah, gotcha. This is then what I'd like to set up...thinking security
>all the way.

See my previous posting, where I posted a proposed IP layout. The
only trick is the netmask on the WAN side IP port of the 2nd router
should be 255.255.255.252 or 255.255.255.248.

>The 'b' router is my TIVO router...and less secure. I figure I could
>set it up so that if anyone got through it, then they'd only get the
>TIVO and the 'net.

What's a TIVO router?

>The 'g' router is for my computers. It has a better firewall and mac
>address checking.

>Here is what I'd want...two networks 'b' and 'g'. I want to be able
>to see the 'b' with the 'g' network, but not necessarily the other way
>'round. That way, I could access the 'b' network with my computers
>and fiddle with the TIVO...and I don't see any reason why the TIVO
>needs to see my computers...I could add the TIVO mac address to the
>list if I need to...but why? I'd also want just the router firewall
>protecting each network...don't want to have to punch a hole through
>two firewalls if I need to...that's why I thought a hub would be
>ideal...just a dumb connection to the net.
>
>Suggestions, solutions?

Yeah. This is rediculous. There's no reason to make life complicated
with double NAT and two routers. It all can be done the way I
originally proposed by turning one of the routers into an access point
(disable the router features) and make it all one big LAN. There's no
security advantage to a double NAT system as any attack is going to
come through the wireless side (LAN) and therefore bypasses all the
protection of the router. The "secure" network is the one connected
to the 2nd router and it's going to have some fun dealing with
services that require holes in the firewall. Keep it simple.
However, if internal security is important (i.e. keeping the kids and
neighbors out of parts of the network) you might was well go for the
double NAT method.


--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

> >At first I thought you were giving me a complement of being a "Top
> >Poster" ,,,like good answers
>
> I never give compliments. See:
> http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
> for why top posting is bad.

Thanks, now I have more etiquette


> >Then I realized you dont like me posting on the top of messages.
Just
> >for you, because I admire your knowledge, I will post on the bottom
or
> >somewhere in between.
>
> I'm honored, I think.
>
> >So, I am not a net mask guru, would you explain the net mask
> >issue....I might not want my wife on her B network seeing my G
stuff.
>
> Ok. Typical two routers in series (double NAT) mess:
>
> LAN #1
> WAN===[Router #1]===================[Router #2]=======LAN #2
>
> WAN = xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx WAN = 192.168.1.2
> WAN NM = 255.255.255.0 WAN NM = 255.255.255.0
> LAN = 192.168.1.1 LAN = 192.168.5.1
> IP's = 192.168.1.xxx IP's = 192.168.5.xxx
> LAN NM = 255.255.255.0 LN NM = 255.255.255.0
>
> Computers on LAN #1 cannot see any computers on LAN #2.
> Computers on LAN #2 can see all computers on LAN #1
> Both LAN #1 and LAN #2 can see the internet. The "5" in the
> 192.168.5.xxx IP block is arbitrary.
>
> If you do NOT want any of the LAN #2 computers to see the computers
on
> LAN #1, you change the subnet mask on WAN port Netmask on Router #2
so
> that it only will "see" Router #1. That would look like his:
>
> WAN = xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx WAN = 192.168.1.2
> WAN NM = 255.255.255.0 WAN NM = 255.255.255.252 <===
> LAN = 192.168.1.1 LAN = 192.168.5.1
> IP's = 192.168.1.xxx IP's = 192.168.5.xxx
> LAN NM = 255.255.255.0 LN NM = 255.255.255.0

Thanks for the explanation. It is appreciated! Plus I understand it
which is hard for an Airhead.


>
> Digging out my handy subnetmask calculator:
> http://www.wildpackets.com/support/downloads
> This will allow only two IP address (192.168.1.1 and .2) to be seen
by
> the WAN port of Router #2 (in addition to the broadcast address of
> 192.168.1.3). Note that 192.168.1.2 is the WAN IP address of Router
> #2 so there is really only one useable IP address. I like to have a
> few more IP's to install print servers and shared devices, so I tend
> to use 255.255.255.248, which allows 5 useable IP's.

Also thanks for the handy calculator.

> What's a TIVO router?
>
As I am sure you know, a TIVO is a DVR for satelite, cable or OTA
television. My old 'b' router's new purpose in life is to connect the
TIVOs to the internet to recieve the Guide information, hense the name
'tivo router'.