dlink 655 router used as WAP

I need some help getting a dlink 655 router/fw positioned as a WAP in
my home lan.

I've provided an ascii art rough network diagram at the end for
reference.

I use a cable modem (comcast) to connect to the internet which is the
wired type with one ethernet port.


home lan consists of netgear FVS318 router/fw next in line.

A wired section all connected to netgear router. All with static IPs
and aimed at the netgear router as default gateway

From there I want to setup the dlink 655 as a WAP whitch is connected
to the netgear router by ethernet and provides wireless in/out to 3
laptops.

I'd like to maintain a static setup throughout but I'm not stuck fast to
that idea.

Then comes a section that consists of all wireless which connects to
the dlink 655 and from there to the netgear router.


I can get nearly everything connected and working if I enable dhcp in
the dlink and let the laptops ask for addresses, but even that does
not last long enough to get all 3 laptops online

There will come a point where the dlink is no longer listed in the list of
wireless networks to connect to. Although no changes have been
wrought in the dlink.

I can't understand how it becomes invisible or why the setup fails
after seeming to be working.

I feel kind of incompetent with the win 7 networking tools and
somewhat confused by them. It seems to keep too much stuff hid to
allow one to easily see what all has been done or not.

I realize there is probably quite a lot of important information
missing in this post but please let me know what needs to be posted to
enable posters to help

A final point is that I want to eventually get to where the dlink 655
is actually being used as a router and I guess that would be by making
the wireless section a different subnet.... but first lets get the
wireless machines on line for now just using the dlink as WAP.

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:59:50 -0600, Harry Putnam <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I need some help getting a dlink 655 router/fw positioned as a WAP in
>my home lan.

Take a look here and see if this is what you need:
<http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To#Use_a_wireless_router_as_a_wireless_acce ss_point>

As you can see, it's easy, and you should have no problem continuing
your strategy of static IP addressing, if you prefer.

>I've provided an ascii art rough network diagram at the end for
>reference.

I didn't see your diagram, but your goal is not unusual, if I
understand correctly.

>There will come a point where the dlink is no longer listed in the list of
>wireless networks to connect to. Although no changes have been
>wrought in the dlink.
>
>I can't understand how it becomes invisible or why the setup fails
>after seeming to be working.

Not enough info to do more than guess, but it could be interference.
<http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes#Wireless_connection_drops_periodically>
<http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes#Too_much_wireless_.28RF.29_interference>

>A final point is that I want to eventually get to where the dlink 655
>is actually being used as a router and I guess that would be by making
>the wireless section a different subnet.... but first lets get the
>wireless machines on line for now just using the dlink as WAP.

There's no need to establish a second subnet unless you need to
isolate the wireless PC's from the wired group, for example. It's
usually easier to use a single subnet so that filesharing is
simplified.

Char Jackson <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:59:50 -0600, Harry Putnam <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>I need some help getting a dlink 655 router/fw positioned as a WAP in
>>my home lan.
>
> Take a look here and see if this is what you need:
> <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To#Use_a_wireless_router_as_a_wireless_acce ss_point>
>
> As you can see, it's easy, and you should have no problem continuing
> your strategy of static IP addressing, if you prefer.

Thanks for the site.... it is good to see it laid out nice and simply.

Even that it did not hold for my usage and has turned out NOT to work
on this end.

I knew those basic principles there and did do exactly what is laid
out there and many other attempts with this or that difference. None
worked at first but after hours and hours of messing around, it seems
to be working now since 2am this morning when I left off.

Contrary to what it says at the site, (Disable built in DHCP server) I
find it will not work like that here. Even when I've carefully
assigned IPs to the laptops. In fact even coming at it the other way
round by reserving dhcp served Addresses by MAC of laptops... again,
after many attempts, it never seemed to work.

Finally with dhcp service turned on, and laptops set to receive
everything via dhcp (And I set the service to
192.168.0.100 - 192.168.0.199
(no reserved numbers)

Finally things worked... I realize that it should of worked in at
least 2 different other configurations but finally wore out on trying
experiment after experiment.

If asked to say what made it work this time I could not answer since
I've tried what seemed to me to be the exact same thing several other
times and it did not work.

>>I've provided an ascii art rough network diagram at the end for
>>reference.
>
> I didn't see your diagram, but your goal is not unusual, if I
> understand correctly.

I see I managed to not include it after saying I would, but as you say,
it's not complicated and probably unnecessary by now to include a
diagram. (if it every was)

>>There will come a point where the dlink is no longer listed in the list of
>>wireless networks to connect to. Although no changes have been
>>wrought in the dlink.

[...] thanks for the helpful sites concerning `interference'

>>A final point is that I want to eventually get to where the dlink 655
>>is actually being used as a router and I guess that would be by making
>>the wireless section a different subnet.... but first lets get the
>>wireless machines on line for now just using the dlink as WAP.
>
> There's no need to establish a second subnet unless you need to
> isolate the wireless PC's from the wired group, for example. It's
> usually easier to use a single subnet so that filesharing is
> simplified.

On that kind of setup:

When I attempt to connect the router through its internet port to the
router above it (a router connected to incoming internet thru the
cable modem (providing a small diagram after all)

Internet
|
cable modem
|
netgear FVS318 (router/fw)
| | | |
m1 m2 m3 |
|
| <= ethernet
dlink 655 (router/fw)
| | | <= wireless
lt1 lt2 lt3

It seems to refuse to allow the same subnet and simply will not allow
its IP to be set to the existing subnet.

I really don't want another subnet so gave up that effort finally, and
will be happy enough with the dlink router acting only as WAP.

But it seems unlikely it can be setup as an actual router, uplinking
to another router, without going to a separate subnet.... I don't mean
as a general rule but at least with this particular router.

I don't doubt that wiser folks than I am are using this very router,
that way, but as I mentioned above, serving as WAP is good enough.

I did want to set things up so that the wireless were channeled thru
there own router/fw and would then be passed by IP and MAC of dlink
router, through to the netgear router into the full home lan.

I guess that should be possible under one subnet eh?

If so, I don't see how to do it with this dlink router unless somehow
avoiding the internet port.

Again, thanks for the helpful sites.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:38:51 -0600, Harry Putnam <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Char Jackson <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:59:50 -0600, Harry Putnam <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>A final point is that I want to eventually get to where the dlink 655
>>>is actually being used as a router and I guess that would be by making
>>>the wireless section a different subnet.... but first lets get the
>>>wireless machines on line for now just using the dlink as WAP.
>>
>> There's no need to establish a second subnet unless you need to
>> isolate the wireless PC's from the wired group, for example. It's
>> usually easier to use a single subnet so that filesharing is
>> simplified.
>
>On that kind of setup:
>
>When I attempt to connect the router through its internet port to the
>router above it (a router connected to incoming internet thru the
>cable modem (providing a small diagram after all)
>
> Internet
> |
> cable modem
> |
> netgear FVS318 (router/fw)
> | | | |
> m1 m2 m3 |
> |
> | <= ethernet
> dlink 655 (router/fw)
> | | | <= wireless
> lt1 lt2 lt3
>
>It seems to refuse to allow the same subnet and simply will not allow
>its IP to be set to the existing subnet.

Bottom line, if you run an Ethernet cable from a LAN port on the
Netgear router to the WAN port on the DLink router, then yes, you'll
end up with two subnets and they cannot be the same as each other, but
the instructions do say that you should use a LAN port on the DLink
router and not its WAN port. By connecting the LAN ports of the two
routers together, you're effectively bypassing the router portion of
the DLink and you can have a single subnet.


>I really don't want another subnet so gave up that effort finally, and
>will be happy enough with the dlink router acting only as WAP.
>
>But it seems unlikely it can be setup as an actual router, uplinking
>to another router, without going to a separate subnet.... I don't mean
>as a general rule but at least with this particular router.

Just connect the routers together LAN to LAN. Leave the WAN port on
the second router unused.

>I don't doubt that wiser folks than I am are using this very router,
>that way, but as I mentioned above, serving as WAP is good enough.
>
>I did want to set things up so that the wireless were channeled thru
>there own router/fw and would then be passed by IP and MAC of dlink
>router, through to the netgear router into the full home lan.
>
>I guess that should be possible under one subnet eh?

Sounds possible, but I haven't done it that way.

>If so, I don't see how to do it with this dlink router unless somehow
>avoiding the internet port.

There you go, I think you're on the right track.

>Again, thanks for the helpful sites.

You're welcome, there's a lot of good info there.