router -> bridge

I have a device I want to put on the LAN (an Xbox v. 1), so it can get
RSS feeds from outside as well as access my SMB shares locally. It only
has a hardwore ethernet jack and no slots. It also would be impractical
to run an ethernet cable to it, so it'll have to be a wireless <->
ethernet bridge. To that end, I got a router which supports "bridge"
mode, an Actiontec MI424WR (revision D). There's another one in the house
(earlier revision though), so the interface is familiar.

The manual says that to make it an IP bridge, I need to set it to have
no IP address. (Actually, it says that having no IP address is useful
when configuring it as a bridge.) Fair enough. However, the message
it pops up before it does that scares me. It says: "Configuring an
internal connection to have no IP address will make it inaccessible".
I can see that.

1. Is that step necessary? Can't I do this:

NAT NAT
(( net )) -- router #1 -- 192.168.1.x (router #2) -- 192.168.2.x (xbox)
`- 192.168.1.x ( ... )
`- ...

2. If it is necessary, how do I access the router afterward?

--
-eben (E-Mail Removed)P http://royalty.mine.nu:81
An ASCII character walks into a bar and orders a double. "Having a bad
day?" asks the barman. "Yeah, I have a parity error," replies the ASCII
chrcter. The barman says, "Yeah, I thought you looked a bit off." - Skud

That's what you're trying to do is make it transparent to the rest of
the network. It would still be visible if you know the IP address. In
the worst case, you could physically reset the device to default specs.
You don't HAVE to let DHCP handle the bridge IP.I have a bridge set to a
fixed IP address and it works fine in my network, just make sure the
number won't conflict with your DHCP server. For example, I have my
access points and router set at 192.168.1.1, 192.168.1.2, etc.: then
have the DHCP serving router start at 192.168.1.100: no worries.

Hactar wrote:
> I have a device I want to put on the LAN (an Xbox v. 1), so it can get
> RSS feeds from outside as well as access my SMB shares locally. It only
> has a hardwore ethernet jack and no slots. It also would be impractical
> to run an ethernet cable to it, so it'll have to be a wireless <->
> ethernet bridge. To that end, I got a router which supports "bridge"
> mode, an Actiontec MI424WR (revision D). There's another one in the house
> (earlier revision though), so the interface is familiar.
>
> The manual says that to make it an IP bridge, I need to set it to have
> no IP address. (Actually, it says that having no IP address is useful
> when configuring it as a bridge.) Fair enough. However, the message
> it pops up before it does that scares me. It says: "Configuring an
> internal connection to have no IP address will make it inaccessible".
> I can see that.
>
> 1. Is that step necessary? Can't I do this:
>
> NAT NAT
> (( net )) -- router #1 -- 192.168.1.x (router #2) -- 192.168.2.x (xbox)
> `- 192.168.1.x ( ... )
> `- ...
>
> 2. If it is necessary, how do I access the router afterward?
>

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Airman Thunderbird <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Hactar wrote:
> >
> > The manual says that to make it an IP bridge, I need to set it to have
> > no IP address. (Actually, it says that having no IP address is useful
> > when configuring it as a bridge.) Fair enough. However, the message
> > it pops up before it does that scares me. It says: "Configuring an
> > internal connection to have no IP address will make it inaccessible".
> > I can see that.
> >
> > 1. Is that step necessary? Can't I do this:

snip

> > 2. If it is necessary, how do I access the router afterward?

> That's what you're trying to do is make it transparent to the rest of
> the network. It would still be visible if you know the IP address.

IP address of what? The attached device? At port 80 (www) still? And
does it go in the WAN port or one of the LAN ports, or does it matter?

> You don't HAVE to let DHCP handle the bridge IP.

For most of the other devices around here I have DHCP assign a fixed
address. DHCP doesn't require a dynamic address after all.

> I have a bridge set to a
> fixed IP address and it works fine in my network, just make sure the
> number won't conflict with your DHCP server. For example, I have my
> access points and router set at 192.168.1.1, 192.168.1.2, etc.: then
> have the DHCP serving router start at 192.168.1.100: no worries.

Sure.

Also, I think I have a decent handle on what needs to happen
theoretically. Any idea how I configure the router to make that happen
actually?

--
-eben (E-Mail Removed)P royalty.mine.nu:81

My parents went to a planet where the inhabitants have no
bilateral symmetry, and all I got was this lousy F-shirt.

Hactar wrote:
> I have a device I want to put on the LAN (an Xbox v. 1), so it can get
> RSS feeds from outside as well as access my SMB shares locally. It
> only has a hardwore ethernet jack and no slots. It also would be
> impractical to run an ethernet cable to it, so it'll have to be a
> wireless <-> ethernet bridge. To that end, I got a router which
> supports "bridge" mode, an Actiontec MI424WR (revision D). There's
> another one in the house (earlier revision though), so the interface
> is familiar.
>
> The manual says that to make it an IP bridge, I need to set it to have
> no IP address. (Actually, it says that having no IP address is useful
> when configuring it as a bridge.) Fair enough. However, the message
> it pops up before it does that scares me. It says: "Configuring an
> internal connection to have no IP address will make it inaccessible".
> I can see that.
>
> 1. Is that step necessary? Can't I do this:
>
> NAT NAT
> (( net )) -- router #1 -- 192.168.1.x (router #2) -- 192.168.2.x
> (xbox) `- 192.168.1.x ( ... )
> `- ...
>
> 2. If it is necessary, how do I access the router afterward?
>

I don't understand what you have around the house as the LAN ???

I have a WiFi LAN for the house - 192.168.1.xxx
Then I have a "bridge" device in the family room for the Xbox.
The bridge lives at address 192.168.1.15 for access to config & manage it.
It however just uses the WiFi network like any other "computer device".
The Ethernet jack then connects to the Xbox and all is well,
as if the Xbox was on the LAN or on the WiFi network.

Actually - I have a small hub connected to the "bridge"
to give me several Ethernet ports in the family room
for the Xbox 360, the Tivo, etc

In article <EC21k.6075$(E-Mail Removed)>,
ps56k <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Hactar wrote:
> > I have a device I want to put on the LAN (an Xbox v. 1), so it can get
> > RSS feeds from outside as well as access my SMB shares locally. It
> > only has a hardwore ethernet jack and no slots. It also would be
> > impractical to run an ethernet cable to it, so it'll have to be a
> > wireless <-> ethernet bridge. To that end, I got a router which
> > supports "bridge" mode, an Actiontec MI424WR (revision D). There's
> > another one in the house (earlier revision though), so the interface
> > is familiar.
> >
> > The manual says that to make it an IP bridge, I need to set it to have
> > no IP address. (Actually, it says that having no IP address is useful
> > when configuring it as a bridge.) Fair enough. However, the message
> > it pops up before it does that scares me. It says: "Configuring an
> > internal connection to have no IP address will make it inaccessible".
> > I can see that.
> >
> > 1. Is that step necessary? Can't I do this:

snip

> > 2. If it is necessary, how do I access the router afterward?
>
> I don't understand what you have around the house as the LAN ???

Five computers, a print server, and some occasional things. Some are
hardwired, some are wireless. All are in 192.168.1.*. Everything uses
DHCP, but most are set up to get the same address every time they come
up.

> I have a WiFi LAN for the house - 192.168.1.xxx
> Then I have a "bridge" device in the family room for the Xbox.
> The bridge lives at address 192.168.1.15 for access to config & manage it.
> It however just uses the WiFi network like any other "computer device".
> The Ethernet jack then connects to the Xbox and all is well,
> as if the Xbox was on the LAN or on the WiFi network.

What kind of router do you use for the bridge? That's what I want to do
with mine. I got a nice diagram

http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/images/3/...idge_large.jpg

but I don't know how to configure the Actiontec that way.

--
-eben (E-Mail Removed)P royalty.mine.nu:81
Your pretended fear lest error might step in is like the man who
would keep all wine out of the country lest men should be drunk.
-- Oliver Cromwell

Hactar wrote:
> In article <EC21k.6075$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> ps56k <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Hactar wrote:
>>> I have a device I want to put on the LAN (an Xbox v. 1), so it can
>>> get RSS feeds from outside as well as access my SMB shares locally.
>>> It only has a hardwore ethernet jack and no slots. It also would be
>>> impractical to run an ethernet cable to it, so it'll have to be a
>>> wireless <-> ethernet bridge. To that end, I got a router which
>>> supports "bridge" mode, an Actiontec MI424WR (revision D). There's
>>> another one in the house (earlier revision though), so the interface
>>> is familiar.
>>>
>>> The manual says that to make it an IP bridge, I need to set it to
>>> have no IP address. (Actually, it says that having no IP address
>>> is useful when configuring it as a bridge.) Fair enough. However,
>>> the message it pops up before it does that scares me. It says:
>>> "Configuring an internal connection to have no IP address will make
>>> it inaccessible". I can see that.
>>>
>>> 1. Is that step necessary? Can't I do this:
>
> snip
>
>>> 2. If it is necessary, how do I access the router afterward?
>>
>> I don't understand what you have around the house as the LAN ???
>
> Five computers, a print server, and some occasional things. Some are
> hardwired, some are wireless. All are in 192.168.1.*. Everything
> uses DHCP, but most are set up to get the same address every time
> they come up.
>
>> I have a WiFi LAN for the house - 192.168.1.xxx
>> Then I have a "bridge" device in the family room for the Xbox.
>> The bridge lives at address 192.168.1.15 for access to config &
>> manage it. It however just uses the WiFi network like any other
>> "computer device". The Ethernet jack then connects to the Xbox and
>> all is well,
>> as if the Xbox was on the LAN or on the WiFi network.
>
> What kind of router do you use for the bridge? That's what I want to
> do with mine. I got a nice diagram
>
> http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/images/3/...idge_large.jpg
>
> but I don't know how to configure the Actiontec that way.
>
At the "bridge" end of the puzzle,
you need a device that can act as a "bridge".... ie a real bridge,
or an access point that can be configured into "bridge mode".
You don't need a router - you need a WiFi device that is, or can become a
WiFi "bridge".
Here's a note on your device - Actiontec MI424WR
http://actiontec.com/products/product.php?pid=41
and some info -
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r176...network-bridge

I have an actual WiFi bridge device - the Linksys WET11 - now the WE T54G -
http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satel...=9743339789B59

My main WiFi access point is the the Linksys WAP54G

In article <gzd1k.512$(E-Mail Removed)>,
ps56k <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Hactar wrote:
> > In article <EC21k.6075$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > ps56k <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> I have a WiFi LAN for the house - 192.168.1.xxx
> >> Then I have a "bridge" device in the family room for the Xbox.
> >> The bridge lives at address 192.168.1.15 for access to config &
> >> manage it. It however just uses the WiFi network like any other
> >> "computer device". The Ethernet jack then connects to the Xbox and
> >> all is well,
> >> as if the Xbox was on the LAN or on the WiFi network.
> >
> > What kind of router do you use for the bridge? That's what I want to
> > do with mine. I got a nice diagram
> >
> > http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/images/3/...idge_large.jpg
> >
> > but I don't know how to configure the Actiontec that way.
> >
> At the "bridge" end of the puzzle,
> you need a device that can act as a "bridge".... ie a real bridge,
> or an access point that can be configured into "bridge mode".
> You don't need a router - you need a WiFi device that is, or can become a
> WiFi "bridge".

OK. Can this (MI424-WR) do that (wireless bridge)? I know it's
overkill... I'd also be OK with forming a subnet for the Xbox. I won't
need to make inbound connections.

> Here's a note on your device - Actiontec MI424WR
> http://actiontec.com/products/product.php?pid=41
> and some info -
> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r176...network-bridge

Yeah, I saw things like that before. They're instruction on how to set
up the router to do WAN - LAN bridging with no wireless. I think I want
WAN - wireless or LAN - wireless bridging. Can I do that? What
modifications do I need to make?

> I have an actual WiFi bridge device - the Linksys WET11 - now the WE T54G -
> http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satel...=9743339789B59

I may have to break down and get something like that, if I absolutely
cannot make this thing work.

--
-eben (E-Mail Removed)P royalty.mine.nu:81

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein

If you use a DHCP address from your server, you won't know what the
address is, hence the "Configuring an internal connection to have no IP
address will make it inaccessible". Give it a fixed address and plug
your Xbox in after configuring the bridge.


Hactar wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Airman Thunderbird <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Hactar wrote:
>>> The manual says that to make it an IP bridge, I need to set it to have
>>> no IP address. (Actually, it says that having no IP address is useful
>>> when configuring it as a bridge.) Fair enough. However, the message
>>> it pops up before it does that scares me. It says: "Configuring an
>>> internal connection to have no IP address will make it inaccessible".
>>> I can see that.
>>>
>>> 1. Is that step necessary? Can't I do this:
>
> snip
>
>>> 2. If it is necessary, how do I access the router afterward?
>
>> That's what you're trying to do is make it transparent to the rest of
>> the network. It would still be visible if you know the IP address.
>
> IP address of what? The attached device? At port 80 (www) still? And
> does it go in the WAN port or one of the LAN ports, or does it matter?
>
>> You don't HAVE to let DHCP handle the bridge IP.
>
> For most of the other devices around here I have DHCP assign a fixed
> address. DHCP doesn't require a dynamic address after all.
>
>> I have a bridge set to a
>> fixed IP address and it works fine in my network, just make sure the
>> number won't conflict with your DHCP server. For example, I have my
>> access points and router set at 192.168.1.1, 192.168.1.2, etc.: then
>> have the DHCP serving router start at 192.168.1.100: no worries.
>
> Sure.
>
> Also, I think I have a decent handle on what needs to happen
> theoretically. Any idea how I configure the router to make that happen
> actually?
>

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Airman Thunderbird <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >> Hactar wrote:
> >>> The manual says that to make it an IP bridge, I need to set it to have
> >>> no IP address. (Actually, it says that having no IP address is useful
> >>> when configuring it as a bridge.) Fair enough. However, the message
> >>> it pops up before it does that scares me. It says: "Configuring an
> >>> internal connection to have no IP address will make it inaccessible".
> >>> I can see that.
>
> If you use a DHCP address from your server, you won't know what the
> address is, hence the "Configuring an internal connection to have no IP
> address will make it inaccessible". Give it a fixed address and plug
> your Xbox in after configuring the bridge.

OK. I don't see an obvious way of having the wifi circuitry be just
another device on router #1's net and not broadcast its own SSID. Any
clues?

--
-eben (E-Mail Removed)P royalty.mine.nu:81
> A: It's annoying as hell
> Q: Why do most people hate top-posting? -- Lots42 The Library Avenger
http://www.fscked.co.uk/writing/top-posting-cuss.html

Configure as a bridge, however your particular hardware accomplishes that.

Hactar wrote:

> OK. I don't see an obvious way of having the wifi circuitry be just
> another device on router #1's net and not broadcast its own SSID. Any
> clues?
>