Point to Point Connection Issues

Routing looks fine to me, what exactly is not working, ping? Can you source a ping from the fast ethernet of each router to the opposite router's serial interface and then the other router's fast ethernet interface? If you don't pick the source interface, it will use the closest interface (the serial) which doesn't accurate simulate LAN traffic on one end to the other side's LAN. However, the static routes look fine, as one side points to the other for everything, and the other points back just for the remote LAN. Have you thought about using a routing protocol?

Is a route from Terrell router to Royse City required? or is a route to the Dlink on the other LAN enough?

Ahh, there is your issue. I failed to look at the diagram. The DLINK has to have a route back to that 192.168.10.0 subnet via the 0.200 cisco router. That will at least help the traffic get to and from the dlink back to that subnet.

However, I am not sure how the DLINK will handle traffic from a subnet that it does not know about in terms of NAT/PAT. Hopefully someone else on the boards has done multi-subnet NAT through a dlink or linksys, but generally speaking, the DLINK would have a NAT table from inside addresses (192.168.0.x) to the external address. When a different subnet address comes into play (192.168.10.0), I'm not sure it will NAT that, so you may need to NAT on the Cisco device so that the traffic from the far end subnet looks local to the DLINK. Hopefully that makes sense.

If I am right, you may need to upgrade your internet router to something that supports NAT of multiple segments.

So if I wanted to route to just the cisco router in Royse City, it would be like so?

ip route 192.168.0.200 255.255.255.0 10.100.254.1

Cause that doesnt appear to work. At this point I really just need the two sites talking back and forth, I can deal with the piggy back WWW later.

Here is the issue. Your nodes on the 192.168.0.0 network have their gateway set at the DLINK right? When they need to route to anything other than that subnet, they rely on their gateway to get them to it, which is usually out to the internet. However, you have another set of subnets behind the Cisco router (serial subnet, and far end LAN subnet). You need to add a route on the DLINK (via the GUI, should be a screen for this somewhere), that says to get to 192.168.10.0

255.255.255.0, send traffic to 192.168.0.200. The Cisco then has the necessary routes to get to and from the far-end subnet.

The only other way to get this to work is turn up NAT on the Cisco so that all traffic from the 192.168.10.0 network looks like 0.200 on the local subnet. But without NAT, the near end doesn't know how to get back to the 10.0 subnet.

In short, add the route to 192.168.10.0 via 192.168.0.200 ON the dlink.

As others have said, your routing looks fine between the sites. However, for the remote network 192.168.10.0/24 network to 'piggy back' off the D107P router for Internet access, then there needs to be a static route on the D-Link D107P router pointing to the remote network 192.168.10.0/24 via

192.168.0.200.

Cheers,

Matt

... And this should also fix hosts being unable to talk to each other, as presumably the hosts on 192.168.0.0/24 only have a default route to

192.168.0.1, and do not have a more specific entry to reach 192.168.10.0/24 via 192.168.0.200?

Cheers,

Matt

Well he also needs that route for the boxes on 192.168.0.0 to get to

10.0, because they most likely use 0.1 as their gateway, and not the Cisco router. So even LAN to LAN would be broke without the route (although technically only broken one way).

Nevermind, you were obviously posting when I wrote that.....disregard!

Although then we still need to address the internet access. Matthew do you know if a dlink/linksys/netgear etc will NAT subnets that it doesn't directly own? Meaning will the 0.1 dlink nat 192.168.10.0 to the internet, or does it only NAT directly connected subnets?

If it doesn't, he will need to NAT on the Cisco or get a more capable router to replace the DLINK.

So in the Royse City, I need to first route 192.168.0.200 first, then attempt to route 192.168.0.1 cause that is the direct flow? Then in Dlink I need to have a route back to the .200 so that it can get back? A dummy proof would def help..

Should I do a route on royse city cisco like so?

192.168.0.200 255.255.255.0 10.100.254.1 0.0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1

then in the Dlink assign a route back to 192.168.0.200

Correction, I mean the Terrell..to route to Royse City...or will it see 192.168.0.1 without correctly first routing the cisco

Dlink - only knows about 192.168.0.0 and nothing else. Needs a route that points to 192.168.10.0 via 192.168.0.200

Local Cisco - Only knows about 192.168.0.0 and the Serial link. Needs a default route pointing to the DLINK, and a route to the far LAN segment via the far side serial interface.

Remote Cisco - Only knows about 192.168.10.0 and the Serial Link. Needs a single default route to the serial on the other router. This will cover traffic to the internet and traffic to 192.168.0.0 since a default route is all traffic.

This what you were looking for?

,

I must be retarded, is it possible to configure each router here to make it work? And give me the exact configurations yall are looking like it needs to be? Ive tried but its apparent I am doing something wrong. I have the DLINK routing in, I can get from Terrell all the way to Royse City DLINK, but nothing after that.

Did you add the route to 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0 via 192.168.0.200 to the DLINK GUI? The cisco configs look fine, your only gap was on the dlink itself.

Alright, got the two talking to each other, pings are going thru both ways, tracerts going thru, but cant access any files on the other LAN from each location.

Have you tried \\\\servername or \\\\ip address. Either way, you are most likely beyond a network issue and into a workgroup or domain issue since you now have multiple networks.