My Network broke replacing old hub with new router

I replaced my old hub with a DLINK DI-704P HW: C1 FM: V3.0 Router.

Now my wife's computer can no longer map a drive to my computer. My
computer can no longer map a drive to her computer. The simple solution
would be to put the two computers on the same network by running cables down
the hallway but this just isn't feasible in our home and also highly
dangerous for my health.

This is the first time I have tried doing any networking with more than one
router. The reading I have done seems to indicate that I need to set
appropriate entries in the routing tables for DESTINATION, SUBNETMASK,
GATEWAY, and HOP for both Routers. Unfortunately the article said what
needs to be done, not
how to do it? The response from the DLINK email support indicated that what
I want to do is not possible and that the two computers I wanted to connect
have to be on the same network. But I still think this must be doable
(Isn't this how the internet works?), so I am hoping someone out there might
have an idea on what routing table configuration entries I need to setup or
to confirm what the DLINK technical support told me. I suspect that I just
need the right subnet mask so the other router route will take prescence
over the WAN route. I hoping that my internet traffic when it finds the
other router to be a deadend will attempt to go out on the WAN route.

Here are the configuration details:

PC1

Running Windows XP Home
Dynamic IP Address of 192.168.1.101 from LINKSYS router at 192.168.1.1
What drive mapping is required to map to PC2/CDRIVE or does this remain the
same once routing table is complete?

LINKSYS BEFSB41 ROUTER

Dynamic WAN IP from Internet Provider
IP on its network 192.168.1.1

DLINK DI-704P ROUTER

Dynamic WAN IP 192.168.1.104 (from LINKSYS ROUTER above)
IP on its network 192.168.0.1

PC2

Running Windows XP Professional
Static IP Address of 192.168.0.88 from DLINK DI-704P Router at 192.168.0.1
What drive mapping is required to map to PC1/CDRIVE or does this remain the
same once routing table is complete?

LINKSYS Routing Table Required Entries

Destination:
Subnet Mask:
Gateway:
Hop:

DLINK DI-704P Routing Table Required Entries

Destination:
Subnet Mask:
Gateway:
Hop:


QUESTIONS FOR YOU

What DLINK Routing table values are required to allow //PC2 mapping to
//PC1/CDRIVE ?

What LINKSYS Routing table values are required to allow //PC1 mapping to
//PC2/CDRIVE ?

Would the existing drive mappings work once the routing table is correctly
set?
If not, what format would the drive mappings take?
Would it be another level of hierarchy like //192.168.1.1/PC1/CDRIVE?


If this is indeed not possible, then does anyone know how to make my router
function as a hub? Disable the giving out of IP Addresses?

Thank you for your help.

Brian

In article <LF%Ic.10681$Mr4.4610@pd7tw1no>, "Brian Morris"
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> I replaced my old hub with a DLINK DI-704P HW: C1 FM: V3.0 Router.
>
<snip>
> If this is indeed not possible, then does anyone know how to make my router
> function as a hub? Disable the giving out of IP Addresses?
>
Just use the LAN connections and ignore the WAN connection - should do
the trick. You can continue to use DHCP from both routers as long as
they are set to provide different ranges on the same network, although
there's not really much advantage to using DHCP with only a few devices.
I'm still not clear why you're using two routers though.

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 01:05:47 GMT, "Brian Morris"
<(E-Mail Removed)> strung together this:

>I replaced my old hub with a DLINK DI-704P HW: C1 FM: V3.0 Router.
>
Before we go any further, why? Did you need a router, has it solved
any other problems you were having? Why not just put another hub in?
If you only have one internet connection with 2 PCs then 1 router is
plenty.
I don't understand what you're trying to do here.
--

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd

Good idea I will give that a try!

I do have more devices on the routers, I just need to share between the two
computers so I kept my example more simple.

My son wanted a splitter for his PC and PlayStation so I used the hub I had.
Because routers are so popular now and the costs are about the same as a hub
and it has more potential functionality than a hub, I bought the router.

Thank you very much, Rob, for your response to my question.



"Rob Morley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) t...
> In article <LF%Ic.10681$Mr4.4610@pd7tw1no>, "Brian Morris"
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
> > I replaced my old hub with a DLINK DI-704P HW: C1 FM: V3.0 Router.
> >
> <snip>
> > If this is indeed not possible, then does anyone know how to make my
router
> > function as a hub? Disable the giving out of IP Addresses?
> >
> Just use the LAN connections and ignore the WAN connection - should do
> the trick. You can continue to use DHCP from both routers as long as
> they are set to provide different ranges on the same network, although
> there's not really much advantage to using DHCP with only a few devices.
> I'm still not clear why you're using two routers though.

Thank you Lurch for your response to my question. Rob who responded just
before you gave me a good idea to try that makes the router act like a hub.
If Rob's idea doesn't work I'll just get another hub and store the router
for future consideration.

I do have more devices on the routers, I just need to share between the two
computers so I kept my example more simple. With basement finished now
running more cables in the house is not practical.

My son wanted a splitter for his PC and PlayStation so I used the hub I had.
Because routers are so popular now and the costs are about the same as a hub
and it has more potential functionality than a hub, I bought the router.



"Lurch" <(E-Mail Removed) > wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 01:05:47 GMT, "Brian Morris"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> strung together this:
>
> >I replaced my old hub with a DLINK DI-704P HW: C1 FM: V3.0 Router.
> >
> Before we go any further, why? Did you need a router, has it solved
> any other problems you were having? Why not just put another hub in?
> If you only have one internet connection with 2 PCs then 1 router is
> plenty.
> I don't understand what you're trying to do here.
> --
>
> SJW
> A.C.S. Ltd

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:48:31 GMT, "Brian Morris"
<(E-Mail Removed)> strung together this:

>My son wanted a splitter for his PC and PlayStation so I used the hub I had.
>Because routers are so popular now and the costs are about the same as a hub
>and it has more potential functionality than a hub, I bought the router.
>
Well, that isn't strictly true, hubs can be had for under a tenner,
routers are considerably more.
For what you're trying to do there is no need for any of the extra
functionallity you have in second hub for such a small network.
If it were my network I would replace the new router with a straight
forward hub, or just the routers network ports as a hub as Rob
suggested, although it might be worth looking around for a cheap hub
and selling the router.
--

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, "Lurch"
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:48:31 GMT, "Brian Morris"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> strung together this:
>
> >My son wanted a splitter for his PC and PlayStation so I used the hub I had.
> >Because routers are so popular now and the costs are about the same as a hub
> >and it has more potential functionality than a hub, I bought the router.
> >
> Well, that isn't strictly true, hubs can be had for under a tenner,
> routers are considerably more.
> For what you're trying to do there is no need for any of the extra
> functionallity you have in second hub for such a small network.
> If it were my network I would replace the new router with a straight
> forward hub, or just the routers network ports as a hub as Rob
> suggested, although it might be worth looking around for a cheap hub
> and selling the router.
>
I believe the router in question has a print server that might come in
handy.

I got a great limited quantities boxing day sale and rebate on that DI 704P
router that made the cost about $20 Cdn instead of the normal $89 Cdn. The
hub I found at my favorite supplier was an 8 port Eusso 10BaseT for $90 Cdn,
so using the router is a better option for me if I can get it to work.

Although it is more complicated solution, do you think it is possible to set
the routing table entries to allow sharing?


"Lurch" <(E-Mail Removed) > wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:48:31 GMT, "Brian Morris"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> strung together this:
>
> >My son wanted a splitter for his PC and PlayStation so I used the hub I
had.
> >Because routers are so popular now and the costs are about the same as a
hub
> >and it has more potential functionality than a hub, I bought the router.
> >
> Well, that isn't strictly true, hubs can be had for under a tenner,
> routers are considerably more.
> For what you're trying to do there is no need for any of the extra
> functionallity you have in second hub for such a small network.
> If it were my network I would replace the new router with a straight
> forward hub, or just the routers network ports as a hub as Rob
> suggested, although it might be worth looking around for a cheap hub
> and selling the router.
> --
>
> SJW
> A.C.S. Ltd

"Brian Morris" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:LF%Ic.10681$Mr4.4610@pd7tw1no...
[snip]
> I am hoping someone out there might have an idea on what routing table
> configuration entries I need to setup or to confirm what the DLINK
> technical support told me.

I assume your setup looks like this (use a fixed-width font):

D-Link
+---+ Linksys
PC2----|DL |DW +---+
| |---------| |
+---+ |LL |---- Internet
PC1---| |LW
+---+

Where:
DL = D-Link LAN interface
DW = D-Link WAN interface
LL = Linksys LAN interface
LW = Linksys WAN interface

The "ideal" solution is as follows:

1. The D-Link router is set to do normal (not NAT) routing. DW should have
static configuration 192.168.1.2/255.255.255.0, default route and DNS
server both 192.168.1.1. DL should have static configuration
192.168.0.1/255.255.255.0.

2. The Linksys router configuration should remain mostly unchanged (NAT
routing); LW configured by ISP (including, I assume, DNS servers) and LL
static 192.168.1.1/255.255.255.0. It needs an additional route,
192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.1.2. This route tells the
router that in order to send packets to 192.168.0.x, it should forward to
the D-Link router.

3. PC1 can use DHCP, but it is easier to use static configuration;
192.168.1.3/255.255.255.0, default route and DNS server both 192.168.1.1.
You also need the same additional route as the Linksys, for the same
reason.

4. PC2 can also use DHCP, but again it is easier to use static
configuration; 192.168.0.2/255.255.255.0, default route and DNS server
192.168.0.1.

(The reason for static configuration is that in order to be able to use
names for the PCs you will need to enter them in the hosts files, as file
sharing name resolution will not get past the D-Link router.)

The main problems with the above solution are that it requires:
- the D-Link to act as a normal router.
- the ability to configure a route on the Linksys.
- the ability of the Linksys to perform NAT routing for addresses outside
the subnet of its LAN interface.

Failing any one of these requirements will stop it working, and the chances
of this are (knowing nothing about the particular routers) rather high.

Wired as above, an alternative solution that might work (I've never tried
it) is to forward TCP and UDP ports 136-139 on the D-Link to PC2. PC1 should
then be able to connect to PC2 using the address of DW, and PC2 to PC1 using
the address of PC1. The only routing entries would be the default routes
(PC1 and DW: LL, PC2: DL).

I think, as Rob Morley suggested, the best thing would be to turn off the
DHCP server on the D-Link and connect one of its LAN ports to a LAN port on
the Linksys, leaving the D-Link's WAN port unconnected. In this
configuration, you are using the D-Link as nothing more than a hub/switch,
matching (as far as anything can tell) the previous configuration.

Alex

Thank you Alex. I'll need a little time to digest this. Your diagram of my
setup is correct.

I greatly appreciate the time you spent Alex to respond. I'll let you know
how it turns out. I have an exam on Monday, so I'll not be able to work on
it until Tuesday night Mountain Daylight Time.

I quickly tried Rob's suggestion by doing only a cable switch from WAN
connection to LAN connection. I didn't change the PC2 static IP to a
dynamic IP on the the LINKSYS router yet due to lack of time.

Thanks again for your suggestions.

Brian


"Alex Fraser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Brian Morris" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:LF%Ic.10681$Mr4.4610@pd7tw1no...
> [snip]
> > I am hoping someone out there might have an idea on what routing table
> > configuration entries I need to setup or to confirm what the DLINK
> > technical support told me.
>
> I assume your setup looks like this (use a fixed-width font):
>
> D-Link
> +---+ Linksys
> PC2----|DL |DW +---+
> | |---------| |
> +---+ |LL |---- Internet
> PC1---| |LW
> +---+
>
> Where:
> DL = D-Link LAN interface
> DW = D-Link WAN interface
> LL = Linksys LAN interface
> LW = Linksys WAN interface
>
> The "ideal" solution is as follows:
>
> 1. The D-Link router is set to do normal (not NAT) routing. DW should have
> static configuration 192.168.1.2/255.255.255.0, default route and DNS
> server both 192.168.1.1. DL should have static configuration
> 192.168.0.1/255.255.255.0.
>
> 2. The Linksys router configuration should remain mostly unchanged (NAT
> routing); LW configured by ISP (including, I assume, DNS servers) and
LL
> static 192.168.1.1/255.255.255.0. It needs an additional route,
> 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.1.2. This route tells the
> router that in order to send packets to 192.168.0.x, it should forward
to
> the D-Link router.
>
> 3. PC1 can use DHCP, but it is easier to use static configuration;
> 192.168.1.3/255.255.255.0, default route and DNS server both
192.168.1.1.
> You also need the same additional route as the Linksys, for the same
> reason.
>
> 4. PC2 can also use DHCP, but again it is easier to use static
> configuration; 192.168.0.2/255.255.255.0, default route and DNS server
> 192.168.0.1.
>
> (The reason for static configuration is that in order to be able to use
> names for the PCs you will need to enter them in the hosts files, as file
> sharing name resolution will not get past the D-Link router.)
>
> The main problems with the above solution are that it requires:
> - the D-Link to act as a normal router.
> - the ability to configure a route on the Linksys.
> - the ability of the Linksys to perform NAT routing for addresses outside
> the subnet of its LAN interface.
>
> Failing any one of these requirements will stop it working, and the
chances
> of this are (knowing nothing about the particular routers) rather high.
>
> Wired as above, an alternative solution that might work (I've never tried
> it) is to forward TCP and UDP ports 136-139 on the D-Link to PC2. PC1
should
> then be able to connect to PC2 using the address of DW, and PC2 to PC1
using
> the address of PC1. The only routing entries would be the default routes
> (PC1 and DW: LL, PC2: DL).
>
> I think, as Rob Morley suggested, the best thing would be to turn off the
> DHCP server on the D-Link and connect one of its LAN ports to a LAN port
on
> the Linksys, leaving the D-Link's WAN port unconnected. In this
> configuration, you are using the D-Link as nothing more than a hub/switch,
> matching (as far as anything can tell) the previous configuration.
>
> Alex
>
>