Multiple networks within on one HUB?

Got a bit of a weird scenario. I have the following setup.

ADSL Router running in passthrough mode connected to HUB (123.123.123.1 in &
123.123.123.2 out)
Desktop 1 connected to HUB (123.123.123.3)
Desktop 2 connected to HUB (123.123.123.4)
Wireless Access Point connected to HUB (123.123.123.5)
Laptop 1 connecting via wireless (123.123.123.6)

Now this all works fine and all computers are connected to the internet
without any port forwarding etc.

Now the problem. We have another laptop we would like to connect up and give
internet access BUT we have run out of fixed IPs so it needs to use a local
address / DHCP. So what is the easiest way to do this with the current
setup?

Is it possible just to put a DHCP server onto one of the desktops and use
that get the IP, and then turn internet sharing on one of the desktops? Is
this possible with the desktops only have 1 network card?

Internet --- Router (fixed IP) -----|--- (fixed IP) Desktop 1
|--- (fixed IP) Desktop 2 (running DHCP
server & internet sharing)
|--- (fixed IP) Wireless Access
Point ---|--- (fixed IP) Laptop 1

|--- (DCHP) Laptop 2

Or is the only way of doing this changing the setup such that the Wireless
Access Point is connected to a second network card in one of the servers
which runs Internet Sharing and DHCP. BUT with this setup could one of the
laptops still connect up using its fixed IP? i.e.


Internet --- Router (fixed IP) -----|--- (fixed IP) Desktop 1
|--- (fixed IP) Desktop 2
(192.168.0.1) --- (DHCP) Wireless Access Point ---|--- (fixed IP) Laptop 1

|--- (DCHP) Laptop 2


(if above diagram looks screwed copy and paste into notepad to layout)

Cheers for any help

Rob

Rob writes:
> Now the problem. We have another laptop we would like to connect up and give
> internet access BUT we have run out of fixed IPs so it needs to use a local
> address / DHCP. So what is the easiest way to do this with the current
> setup?

Get a USB network adapter (or PCI; whichever's easier) whatever just to
get the other network interface. XP needs two interfaces to do its NAT
(ICS). DHCP doesn't have anything to do with NAT; it's a separate thing,
though it might not seem like that with the way XP does its ICS.

Well, it might not be any use to you at all, but my Draytek 2600G routes
for my block of 8 IPs, and my wireless access point plugs straight into
it and gives a 192.x.x.x to a laptop downstairs; the router does the
NAT, too. Quite cool; I didn't expect it to work

As I said, sorry; probably of no use to you

On Tue, 25 May 2004 21:03:54 +0100, Rob wrote:

> Got a bit of a weird scenario. I have the following setup.
>
> ADSL Router running in passthrough mode connected to HUB (123.123.123.1 in &
> 123.123.123.2 out)
> Desktop 1 connected to HUB (123.123.123.3)
> Desktop 2 connected to HUB (123.123.123.4)
> Wireless Access Point connected to HUB (123.123.123.5)
> Laptop 1 connecting via wireless (123.123.123.6)

Is this a home network ?. Because those are not private address ranges
allocated for private use. And how have you run out of IP adresses as you
only mention 6 machines ?

Dave

On Tue, 25 May 2004 21:03:54 +0100, Rob wrote:

> Got a bit of a weird scenario. I have the following setup.
>
> ADSL Router running in passthrough mode connected to HUB (123.123.123.1 in &
> 123.123.123.2 out)
> Desktop 1 connected to HUB (123.123.123.3)
> Desktop 2 connected to HUB (123.123.123.4)
> Wireless Access Point connected to HUB (123.123.123.5)
> Laptop 1 connecting via wireless (123.123.123.6)
>
> Now this all works fine and all computers are connected to the internet
> without any port forwarding etc.
>
> Now the problem. We have another laptop we would like to connect up and give
> internet access BUT we have run out of fixed IPs so it needs to use a local
> address / DHCP. So what is the easiest way to do this with the current
> setup?
>
> Is it possible just to put a DHCP server onto one of the desktops and use
> that get the IP, and then turn internet sharing on one of the desktops? Is
> this possible with the desktops only have 1 network card?
>
> Internet --- Router (fixed IP) -----|--- (fixed IP) Desktop 1
> |--- (fixed IP) Desktop 2 (running DHCP
> server & internet sharing)
> |--- (fixed IP) Wireless Access
> Point ---|--- (fixed IP) Laptop 1
>
> |--- (DCHP) Laptop 2
>
> Or is the only way of doing this changing the setup such that the Wireless
> Access Point is connected to a second network card in one of the servers
> which runs Internet Sharing and DHCP. BUT with this setup could one of the
> laptops still connect up using its fixed IP? i.e.
>
>
> Internet --- Router (fixed IP) -----|--- (fixed IP) Desktop 1
> |--- (fixed IP) Desktop 2
> (192.168.0.1) --- (DHCP) Wireless Access Point ---|--- (fixed IP) Laptop 1
>
> |--- (DCHP) Laptop 2
>
>
> (if above diagram looks screwed copy and paste into notepad to layout)
>
> Cheers for any help
>
> Rob

Wher do those IP addresses come from ?

Dave

"dave" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 21:03:54 +0100, Rob wrote:
>
> > Got a bit of a weird scenario. I have the following setup.
> >
> > ADSL Router running in passthrough mode connected to HUB (123.123.123.1
in &
> > 123.123.123.2 out)
> > Desktop 1 connected to HUB (123.123.123.3)
> > Desktop 2 connected to HUB (123.123.123.4)
> > Wireless Access Point connected to HUB (123.123.123.5)
> > Laptop 1 connecting via wireless (123.123.123.6)
> >
> > Now this all works fine and all computers are connected to the internet
> > without any port forwarding etc.
> >
> > Now the problem. We have another laptop we would like to connect up and
give
> > internet access BUT we have run out of fixed IPs so it needs to use a
local
> > address / DHCP. So what is the easiest way to do this with the current
> > setup?
> >
> > Is it possible just to put a DHCP server onto one of the desktops and
use
> > that get the IP, and then turn internet sharing on one of the desktops?
Is
> > this possible with the desktops only have 1 network card?
> >
> > Internet --- Router (fixed IP) -----|--- (fixed IP) Desktop 1
> > |--- (fixed IP) Desktop 2 (running
DHCP
> > server & internet sharing)
> > |--- (fixed IP) Wireless Access
> > Point ---|--- (fixed IP) Laptop 1
> >
> > |--- (DCHP) Laptop 2
> >
> > Or is the only way of doing this changing the setup such that the
Wireless
> > Access Point is connected to a second network card in one of the servers
> > which runs Internet Sharing and DHCP. BUT with this setup could one of
the
> > laptops still connect up using its fixed IP? i.e.
> >
> >
> > Internet --- Router (fixed IP) -----|--- (fixed IP) Desktop 1
> > |--- (fixed IP) Desktop 2
> > (192.168.0.1) --- (DHCP) Wireless Access Point ---|--- (fixed IP) Laptop
1
> >
> > |--- (DCHP) Laptop 2
> >
> >
> > (if above diagram looks screwed copy and paste into notepad to layout)
> >
> > Cheers for any help
> >
> > Rob
>
> Wher do those IP addresses come from ?
>
> Dave
>

IP Addresses are allocated by my ISP to me. To get any more is going to cost
silly money per month

> IP Addresses are allocated by my ISP to me. To get any more is going to cost
> silly money per month

Unless you need all this IP for servers etc, cant you just setup your
router to use 192.168.1.xx and NAT on one of the 123.123.x.x addresses.
This would give you over 200 IP addresses. I am allocated one static IP
here and use a router with NAT to private IP in the above range ie
198.162.x.x.
This would still allow you to use the Wireless access point. I hope all
this is behind good firwalls.

HTH

Dave

The two desktops definatly need fixed IP's as they both run Web/FTP...
services.

I need to check how the WAP handles IPSec passthrough as I need this for
Tunnelling into work.

"dave" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> > IP Addresses are allocated by my ISP to me. To get any more is going to
cost
> > silly money per month
>
> Unless you need all this IP for servers etc, cant you just setup your
> router to use 192.168.1.xx and NAT on one of the 123.123.x.x addresses.
> This would give you over 200 IP addresses. I am allocated one static IP
> here and use a router with NAT to private IP in the above range ie
> 198.162.x.x.
> This would still allow you to use the Wireless access point. I hope all
> this is behind good firwalls.
>
> HTH
>
> Dave
>
>

"Rob" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> The two desktops definatly need fixed IP's as they both run Web/FTP...
> services.
>
> I need to check how the WAP handles IPSec passthrough as I need this for
> Tunnelling into work.
>
> "dave" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > > IP Addresses are allocated by my ISP to me. To get any more is going to
> cost
> > > silly money per month
> >
> > Unless you need all this IP for servers etc, cant you just setup your
> > router to use 192.168.1.xx and NAT on one of the 123.123.x.x addresses.
> > This would give you over 200 IP addresses. I am allocated one static IP
> > here and use a router with NAT to private IP in the above range ie
> > 198.162.x.x.

Would I be correct that the IP address's are only important to
external systems

So why not translate the external range to an internal range

so xxx.xxx.xxx.2 > 192.168.10.2
xxx.xxx.xxx.3 > 192.168.10.3
xxx.xxx.xxx.4 > 192.168.10.4
xxx.xxx.xxx.5 > 192.168.10.5

Then you will have the rest of the range avalible.

its only a thought, but its how I have setup users in the past who
have a limited number of IP address's

Ian

www.cyber-cottage.co.uk

> > This would still allow you to use the Wireless access point. I hope all
> > this is behind good firwalls.
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >

> so xxx.xxx.xxx.2 > 192.168.10.2
> xxx.xxx.xxx.3 > 192.168.10.3
> xxx.xxx.xxx.4 > 192.168.10.4
> xxx.xxx.xxx.5 > 192.168.10.5
>
> Then you will have the rest of the range avalible.
>
> its only a thought, but its how I have setup users in the past who
> have a limited number of IP address's
>
> Ian
>
> www.cyber-cottage.co.uk

I don't see why he needs to do that, as I said all he needs to do is NAT
via the router rfom 192.168.1.xx to one of his fixed IP.He gets around 200
private IP for his network, but see his reply to me.

Dave

"dave" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> > so xxx.xxx.xxx.2 > 192.168.10.2
> > xxx.xxx.xxx.3 > 192.168.10.3
> > xxx.xxx.xxx.4 > 192.168.10.4
> > xxx.xxx.xxx.5 > 192.168.10.5
> >
> > Then you will have the rest of the range avalible.
> >
> > its only a thought, but its how I have setup users in the past who
> > have a limited number of IP address's
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > www.cyber-cottage.co.uk
>
> I don't see why he needs to do that, as I said all he needs to do is NAT
> via the router rfom 192.168.1.xx to one of his fixed IP.He gets around 200
> private IP for his network, but see his reply to me.
>
Yes I saw his reply hence the method I proposed let him keep his external
address's and have the full range of internal address's
Ian
> Dave