Wireless router and a WAP

A Linksys AP and a Cisco/Linksys wireless router. About 50' from each other. Same building. Each connected to a different ISP & cable modem. But they can't coexist for some reason. If the Cisco is turned on, users connected to the Linksys AP can no longer connect to the interenet. They can ping the cable modem that the AP is connected to.

What needs to be changed to make this work? Is it just a matter of putting them on different wireless channel?

Thanks

Reply to
JohnB
Loading thread data ...

Did it come with the model numbers rubbed off or are you just lazy?

Huh? Do you have two different cable internet vendors? That's rather unlikely because most cities sell franchises to single monopoly cable vendors. There are some overbuilders, but not for cable. Names of cable ISP's? Maker and model numbers of the cable modems?

What are the symptoms exactly. Cannot connect is too vague.

Are the users on the same LAN network? In other words, are they sharing the same router which may or may not be plugged into one or both of these cable modems?

You need to change your fear of numbers. You'll get much better answers to your questions if you supply model numbers, IP address layouts, and other specifics that seem lacking.

I only see one Cisco/Linksys wireless router. Is there something else you didn't mention that also does wireless? If on the same channel, it might cause problems. However, they wouldn't be able to ping the cable modem if that were the case, so it's unlikely.

Not yet. It's considered bad luck to offer thanks before the problem is resolved.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

I never imagined such detail would be necessary, but then I forgot I was in the wireless forum. ;-)

I don't have access to that network right now, so to keep it simple, lets just use, as an example... 2 Linksys routers that are exactly the same. Say a WRT54GL.

2 routers, connected to 2 different cable modems. And different ISPs. Cox and Embarq. You'll have to trust me on that.

In a default, out of the box setup.... no wireless security.... would there be an issue with that setup? By "issue" I mean, would there be any problems connecting to the internet, for wireless clients, even though clients would be within close enough proximity to both routers to connect to either routers?

2 different DHCP scopes. 192.168.1.2 192.168.1.1

Thanks (willing to take a chance)

Reply to
JohnB

for some reason, my news server only had Jeff as the anchor for the thread....

so - what's the problem ? you should be able to get a DHCP address from each pool, and then connect to the Internet via that specific WAP/Router. What SSID is being used - the same ? What channels - the same ?

I would think everything would be ok if you didn't try to roam around and transfer from "segment" to "segment" - Because the IP address of course would be a problem for the "other" segment router.

Reply to
ps56k

Ummm.... first you leave out all of the important numbers. Then, what few numbers you supply, are wrong. Have you considered changing avocations to something that doesn't require numbers? Perhaps a career as a technical writer, who's main purpose is to remove all numbers and buzzwords from engineering manuals so that it's palatable by the GUM (great unwashed masses)?

It might help if there was mutual interference but I doubt it. Methinks there is something odd on your network. However, I can't tell from here.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Why don't you crawl back in your cave. You sure weren't any help here. I asked for help, and got derogatory comments. Your post is a good example of people saying things to other people, on the internet, that they wouldn't say in person.

Reply to
JohnB

Yeah. Bite me, arse-wipe.

Reply to
Warren Oates

Sure. No problem. My palatial cave is quite comfortable. I deal with most of my customers in person and on the phone. The universal consensus is that I'm an abrasive and easily irritated curmudgeon that usually fixes the problem and does things correctly. I've lost a few customers that couldn't tolerate me... very few.

And yes, my comments are certainly derogatory. They were meant to plant a virtual kick in your posterior in the apparently vain hope that you might find it useful to supply the minimal information necessary to generate a decent answer. Please don't feel that you're being targeted for abuse. I do this to everyone that makes the same mistake. If you want a decent answer, supply some decent information. Quid pro quo.

Now, since you're pissed off, so am I. I wasted about 20 minutes detailing what to do to fix your problem as indicated by your "typo error". I don't mind burning my time dealing with guesswork. Sometimes, that's all that's available. However, I do mind wasting it on numerical sloppiness. That's why I suggested you find something to do that doesn't involve numbers.

If you go back a few thousand years, the various oracles had the same problem. Do you think the Greeks just showed up at the oracles front door and demanded an instant answer without any preparation? Nope. They brought gifts, offerings, praise, sacrifice, and goodies. The spent time organizing their requests in order to avoid ambiguous or useless answers from the oracle. Times have changed, but not that much. My price is maker, model number, network topology, numbers, symptoms, accurate descriptions, and the contents of your bank account. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Meanwhile you still have a problem.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Heh. Yes Madam, I am drunk; but you are ugly, and in the morning I'll be sober.

Reply to
Warren Oates

Obviously you have not been on this forum much or you would not have said that. It's certainly easy to see how you could take offense at Jeff's chiding, but you should realize :

1) He's one of best experts out there giving thought out free advice. Not just snap answers. If you go search for info and answers on wifi, many solutions you find has key info that Jeff laid out and left on the web for all to use. Often I'm about to ask a question, then I do a web search and find that Jeff explained it all two years ago in some thread somewhere. He's not just some guy who knows a couple things and gets a kick out of dominating newbies with his expertise. 2) Yes, Jeff's abrasive at times, but once you have followed the posts for a while, you realize it's never personal just his style of dealing with the constant lack of info by the OPs. You will also realize that you can insult him all you like and he won't take offense. But if you return to the issue and do a good job of defining it, Jeff will still help you resolve. Truly interested in solving the problem, not being right or pissing people off - or pleasing them either ! 3) The chiding will always have an element of humor to it, if you don't take offense too readily. Never too heavy, Jeff encourages this group to stay light or at least return to that attitude when things descend into insults and anger. Rule of the day here: Solve problems, have a little fun and social interaction while learning and sharing.

So, getting back on track - assuming that setting the channels not to interfere with each other has been tried - perhaps define the problem in the most thorough way you can - lay it out, with all possible numbers?

Some ideas for info- Wireless Gear - model and version? Firmware? Settings for each router? gateways, DHCP, etc, um, what else ipconfig /all from a pc after connecting and then after losing it ?

Cheers, Steve

Reply to
seaweedsl

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.