Simple Routing

I am not an IT person, so this is a new realm for me. This is for a
small company. We have been using 192.168.1.0/24 for some time now, but
we're beginning to run out of the 250 something spaces we have
available (believe it or not..) So what are our options? I believe the
best option is to add internal routers to have different subnets, like
192.168.2.0 and 192.168.3.0, etc.. However, whenever I look at routers,
they use weird protocols for the WAN port, like ISDN, etc.. We just
need simple Ethernet in and out?? what am I missing here?



ValeX

"ValeX" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> I am not an IT person, so this is a new realm for me. This is for a
> small company. We have been using 192.168.1.0/24 for some time now, but
> we're beginning to run out of the 250 something spaces we have
> available (believe it or not..) So what are our options? I believe the
> best option is to add internal routers to have different subnets, like
> 192.168.2.0 and 192.168.3.0, etc.. However, whenever I look at routers,
> they use weird protocols for the WAN port, like ISDN, etc.. We just
> need simple Ethernet in and out?? what am I missing here?

Nothing.
While ISDN never took off big in the US, it is not weird.
So what are you really trying to accomplish.
>

I'm ultimately trying to group the computers on our network a little
better, and have more than 254 computers on the network.

> I believe the best option is to add internal routers to have
> different subnets, like 192.168.2.0 and 192.168.3.0, etc..

You can do this with a consumer-grade Linksys router.

On 7 Apr 2006 08:56:10 -0700, "ValeX" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I am not an IT person, so this is a new realm for me. This is for a
>small company. We have been using 192.168.1.0/24 for some time now, but
>we're beginning to run out of the 250 something spaces we have
>available (believe it or not..) So what are our options? I believe the
>best option is to add internal routers to have different subnets, like
>192.168.2.0 and 192.168.3.0, etc.. However, whenever I look at routers,
>they use weird protocols for the WAN port, like ISDN, etc.. We just
>need simple Ethernet in and out?? what am I missing here?

Please post the make and model of your existing router so we may be
able to help. ALso the same info for your switches.

Bob

"ValeX" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> I'm ultimately trying to group the computers on our network a little
> better, and have more than 254 computers on the network.
>

Routers will work, and no need to worry about the wierd WAN connections
But it would be better if we knew how you were presently connected, I.E. the
types of equipment you are now using and how it is used.

ValeX wrote:
> I believe the
> best option is to add internal routers to have different subnets, like
> 192.168.2.0 and 192.168.3.0, etc.. However, whenever I look at routers,
> they use weird protocols for the WAN port, like ISDN, etc.. We just
> need simple Ethernet in and out?? what am I missing here?

You could just use a different address arrangement that provides more
addresses.

However, if you insist, you can readily cascade routers. No weird
protocols are involved on the WAN end. Just set a static IP address.
You may have to do some extra configuring to get the separate LANs to
communicate.

I'd go with 10.x.x.x if I were you. It's so much easier.

Alright, new problem.. Here is current setup

Router's WAN is 192.168.1.4
Router's LAN is 192.168.4.0
'Server' Computer is on the router LAN and is 192.168.4.10

Firewall providers made it so that anything going to 192.168.4.0 goes
through 192.168.1.4 (assuming that they changed their router tables).
Then they linked one of our external IP's to 192.168.4.10.

So, results?

- Linksys router set to 'gateway mode' - Server PC gets internet, can
ping 192.168.1.0 computers, but CANNOT be seen from the external IP,
and cannot be seen from the 192.168.1.0 PC's (192.168.1.15 cannot ping
192.168.4.10)

- Linksys router set to 'router mode' - Server cannot access the
internet, cannot ping 192.168.1.0 computers, BUT!!!! CAN be seen from
the external IP, and can be seen from the 192.168.1.0 computers!!!!

What the hell.. is this a setting with the 'server' machine? or the
router? And.. what should the 'default gateway' on the Server PC be?
192.168.1.1 (our firewall, which is the default gateway for all the
192.168.1.0 PC's) or 192.168.4.1 (IP of router on LAN side of router)?

Im lost....

> 'router mode'

Should be the mode that you want.

> what should the 'default gateway' on the Server PC be?

The default gateway needs to reside in the same logical network.

I'm assuming you've got something like the following and correct me if
I'm wrong.

[nat router]_(192.168.1.0/24)_[router]_(192.168.4.0/24)

The main issue with this configuration is that most people don't know
how to configure routing. There's two ways to handle such a configuration.

1) Configure the nat router with a static route to 192.168.4.0 and
configure the nat router as the default gateway of the router. Hosts may
use either router as their default gateway, barring any remote gateway.

2) Configure the nat router as the default gateway of the router. Hosts
must use the router as their default gateway.

You are correct on the settings. the NAT router is out of our reach
(its in the building, but we can't configure it without calling the
managed security people and getting them to do it. And, if I am
correct, they already configured it to route 192.168.4.0 traffic to
192.168.1.4 (IP of router on WAN port)

I tried #2, but I must be doing something wrong! My settings for the
'cheapy' linksys are
- Static IP
- WAN IP Address : 192.168.1.4
- Subnet Mask - 255.255.255.0
- Default Gateway Address 192.168.1.1
- DNS (just the original DNS settings we use for out network)