One of those stupid problems......

Setup:
*BSD machine as router with 192.168.0/24, 192.168.1/24 and cable modem
interfaces. No problems talking between machines on the two subnets or
out to the wide world.

F5D7130 WAP connected as 192.168.1.254.

When I installed this, I set the netmask for the WAP as 255.255.0.0 and
used a proxy arp demon on the gateway so the WAP could access the other
subnet. It's worked well enough. Today, having forgotten why I did
this and deciding to tidy up, I stopped the proxy arp, and set the WAP
netmask to 255.255.255.0. The WAP promptly ceased to respond to
anything on the 192.168.0 subnet; tcpdump showed icmp pings headed out
to the WAP, nothing coming back. Nothing would coax it into responding.
Looks like there's a fault with the subnetting on the WAP.

I've had to restore the original settings, and all is now working. My
suspicion is that it "knows" 192.168 "should be" a /16 subnet and
behaves accordingly, but I can't be sure. Does anyone know of any
problems with Belkin's firmware in this regard?

--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)

"Mike Scott" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:sAcwe.6314$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Setup:
> *BSD machine as router with 192.168.0/24, 192.168.1/24 and cable modem
> interfaces. No problems talking between machines on the two subnets or
> out to the wide world.
>
> F5D7130 WAP connected as 192.168.1.254.
>
> When I installed this, I set the netmask for the WAP as 255.255.0.0 and
> used a proxy arp demon on the gateway so the WAP could access the other
> subnet. It's worked well enough. Today, having forgotten why I did
> this and deciding to tidy up, I stopped the proxy arp, and set the WAP
> netmask to 255.255.255.0. The WAP promptly ceased to respond to
> anything on the 192.168.0 subnet; tcpdump showed icmp pings headed out
> to the WAP, nothing coming back. Nothing would coax it into responding.

The AP needs to know the route for 192.168.0.0/24. You can probably
configure the 192.168.1.0/24 address of the router as the AP's default
gateway.

Alex

"Alex Fraser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hMqdnTRbS-(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Mike Scott" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:sAcwe.6314$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Setup:
> > *BSD machine as router with 192.168.0/24, 192.168.1/24 and cable modem
> > interfaces. No problems talking between machines on the two subnets or
> > out to the wide world.
> >
> > F5D7130 WAP connected as 192.168.1.254.
> >
> > When I installed this, I set the netmask for the WAP as 255.255.0.0 and
> > used a proxy arp demon on the gateway so the WAP could access the other
> > subnet. It's worked well enough. Today, having forgotten why I did
> > this and deciding to tidy up, I stopped the proxy arp, and set the WAP
> > netmask to 255.255.255.0. The WAP promptly ceased to respond to
> > anything on the 192.168.0 subnet; tcpdump showed icmp pings headed out
> > to the WAP, nothing coming back. Nothing would coax it into responding.
>
> The AP needs to know the route for 192.168.0.0/24. You can probably
> configure the 192.168.1.0/24 address of the router as the AP's default
> gateway.

Hmm, reading the manual, it doesn't seem like you can set up any routing at
all; the AP can only talk to the attached network.

An alternative to proxy ARP would be to NAT traffic from 192.168.0.0/24
destined for the AP (just the AP, not the whole network). I know how to do
this with Linux but have no networking experience with any BSD. In any case,
whether this is any better than proxy ARP is debatable.

Alex

Alex Fraser wrote:
....
>>The AP needs to know the route for 192.168.0.0/24. You can probably
>>configure the 192.168.1.0/24 address of the router as the AP's default
>>gateway.
>
>
> Hmm, reading the manual, it doesn't seem like you can set up any routing at
> all; the AP can only talk to the attached network.

Ah, now that jogs my memory - thanks! Knew I was missing something
vital. I remember now that I expected to see a default gateway when I
installed the unit. I didn't, so stuck in the poxy arp as a
work-around. Interesting that the bridge (F5D7330) can have a gateway
specified.

Put it down to rotten firmware design then - I guess that's the last
Belkin unit I buy :-)

>
> An alternative to proxy ARP would be to NAT traffic from 192.168.0.0/24
> destined for the AP (just the AP, not the whole network). I know how to do
> this with Linux but have no networking experience with any BSD. In any case,
> whether this is any better than proxy ARP is debatable.

Not sure about that - I'll leave the proxy arp, as it seems to work. I
really must document things better!!

Thanks again for jogging the old brain-box.

--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)