Cannot connect from wired to wireless

Seems like you refuse to change your network so it will work both wired and wireless together.. I would think either change it so it will work the way you want, or spend the bucks and by the Aironet for home. Your choice.. change things (free) or spends hundreds to do it, or just do nothing and keep complaining....
Net Worker wrote:

It can do that. The problem is to get the right routing, which I can't figure out how to accomplish with the standard Linksys firmware for a WRT54G.
Adding routing that will allow connection to other parts of the LAN is easy. Go to the route table entry form and add a route to, for example, 192.168.0.0 with a netmask of 255.255.0.0, and bingo every 192.168.x.x address will be correctly routed between the wireless and wired LAN. That is useful if, for example, the wired LAN is all on one subnet, say 192.168.0.x and the wireless net is all assigned to a different subnet, such as 192.168.1.x.
However, I've not figured out how to add a default route to the ethernet LAN ports on a WRT54G, as opposed to the WAN/Internet port.
Instead, I've used both the Satori and HyperWRT firmware upgrades, and they both do that with ease (enable telnet, telnet in and add the command). With Satori that can be made to survive a reboot by using the web menu to save the startup. With Hyperwrt fireware one puts those statements into the startup file, then saves it.
But without a default route with your firewall as the gateway, no Internet access is possible.
Personally, I'd use a wired net for that. I'd bet that teenager wouldn't have nearly the hesitation at pulling CAT5 that you do! (Yeah, scary... but that is *nothing* compared to what he does when you aren't looking! Let him do the hands on part of installing the whole thing, right down to the jacks. He'll probably take a lot of pride later on in pure ownership rights...)
Unless you specifically add a route, nothing the wireless side can access anything with a 192.168.0.x address.
What does the WRT54G's route table look like?

Hi Robert Well, that is exactly the problem. I cannot simplify my network, it is like it is for a reason. I have quite a few more devices that needs to hook up to the network.
All I need the Linksys to do is to act as a bridge, transparently translate from the wired to the wireless and back again, so that to the rest of the network it appears as if it was wired. I have a Cisco Aironet 1200 at work that will do just that, but I really cannot afford to buy one of those for my home network.
(This is all just a convenience thing. I have a teenager living at the other end of the house, and I gave him an old computer and bought the Linksys so that he can have internet access from his room. Crawling through the attic pulling Cat5e from my office/computer lab to his room does not appeal to me. But then he starts asking me to burn CD's for him, and moving MP3 files via a thumbdrive gets old really fast. The Linksys isn't, and will probably never be, the center of my network.)

Yes, you're right. The Firewall is the router between my hub and the internet. It gets a DHCP address from Cox Cable, and NATs it to 192.168.0.x/24. Then to the hub and my "normal" PC and my wife's PC. Then from the hub I got the Linksys hanging off a port and the kid's PC at the other end of the wireless.
(I also have a Cisco 5505 hanging off the hub, then off of that five Cisco 25xx routers, a Cisco 2950 switch, two Nortel switches, a Livingston terminal server, and another 3Com hub. All of which may at any given time be hooked directly to the first hub, depending on what I'm trying to learn. Add a couple of Linux boxes, at least two - but often three - laptops, all with wireless capabilities, and it all becomes quite a mess. Which in part explains why I don't want another DHCP server stirred into this brew. Oh, the IPcop is also my NTP server, and I'm considering making it my internal DNS server too :)

Okay.. From your q's, obviously you think it is one device.... It is NOT.. it is actually several devices (3) in one box... (wan input/Wireless AP/Router)... If you make one of those 3 a bridge ONLY, then you essentialy say, i want part of this device to be a bridge, and not be able to talk to another part of the device.
To specifically answer your question, yes, it CAN be a bridge, and make no changes to the packets passed, however, if you use it in bridge mode, you separate the wireless part out, and they(wired and wireless) can't talk to each other.
Sorry if you took the answer as snotty, but it would be real simple to move a few things around and it will work just fine (and be free), but you want to do it a way that will not work. It's rather frustrating to see people keep telling you the easy way, but you want to stay with the impossible way, and it's getting frustrating.
Net Worker wrote:

I would not be so suprised that the linksys site is not alot of help, you are really making your netwrk more complicated then it should ne.
Let me see if I can suggest something easier.
connect the cable modem into your Linksys router. Take the Hub away. Connect your wired PCs into your Linksys router. Take IPcop out, or atleast disable it as you DHCP server and let your Linksys router handle that. Place your 2 wired computers into your routers DMZ and that will allow them to bypass the routers built in firewall.
Your network is a gloodge, and it needs to be cleaned up. You have the cababilities to do everything you want with the one piece of Linksys hardware.
Robert...

Hi Robert, The FW (IPcop) has two interfaces. A Red and a Green. The Red interface is the Internet, and the Green interface is inside, or protected. The 3Com hub is hanging off the Green, and as such is seen as being internal. This works pretty well, everything hooked to the hub can get to the Internet without any problems. The Linksys is connected to the hub via its WAN port, and has a static IP on the same network as the rest of the hub connections. (192.168.0.21/24, the DHCP range is from .100 to .200) I can ping the Linksys from the FW. And from any other 192.168.0.x hosts.
The wireless side of the Linksys is on a different network. 192.169.1.x/24 I can NOT ping the Linksys itself at 192.168.1.1 nor any of the hosts on the wireless side. And now it appears to me that this is probably a routing problem. I'm going about this the wrong way. Troubleshoot by pinging the router interfaces, first the near, then the far. Resolve one at a time. I'm forgetting my basics here :)
Still, the basic question is; Can the Linksys act just like a wire replacement? Be a transparent media that just passes the packets both ways without doing anything to them?
Thanks for all your suggestions and help. Even if we don't resolve this one, I've already learned a few things.
Thanks
Otto

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this. I cannot change the network. It is like it is because I need it this way. I asked a fairly simple question; Can the Linksys act as a bridge, passing traffic in both directions without altering it? Like the Aironet can. That is in essence a very simple yes/no question. If you know the answer. I don't, and have been unable to find out on my own. So I thought I'd ask here. If the answer is yes, I'd like to know how. If the answer is no, I will just move on with my life and try to accomplish things differently. This is not a life altering issue in any way. It will probably be a heck of a lot cheaper and easier to just buy the kind a CD burner.
However, geeks like to figure things out, and I'm curious.
I am also aware that the Linksys is a "home network" device, and that what I got here is probably pushing the definition of "home network" a little bit. One of the reasons I cannot put everything on the Linksys is that I use sniffers a lot, and that is much easier done on a hub than a switch, and impossible on the Linksys since port mirroring isn't built into it. (Then again, I'm no expert on Linksys so maybe it is :)
All in all, I'm not overly happy with your implication that I'm some arrogant little b*stard that is going to keep complaining until the world turns my way. I will not. I will just *make* it turn my way :)
Otto

ok, that is a bit more explanation. So, how are you connecting to the net? The problem I am seeing is that you have no router connected to your hub for your wired network, just using IPcop. Am I right?

Hi Floyd, Bet you don't hear this too often, but I'm born and raised quite a bit further north than you are now :)
Anyway, I think you are on to something here...
Ok, using the latest firmware v3.01.3 sep 22, 2004. Operating mode is "Router" with RIP disabled. So I add the route, what should I use as a gateway? I've tried 192.168.0.1, the IPCcop FW, and the 192.168.0.21 the Linksys interface, to no avail.
This is, luckily, not currently a problem for me since I don't use any of those.
Not a bad idea, however the attic access is quite a distance from his room, it is really a crawl space up there, and he is 6' 2" and about 300# so I really don't think he will fit. Not to mention that we live in Flordia and it usually is about a million degrees there... He may consider my suggestion of joining the Navy before he volunteers to get up in the attic. That, however, will not prevent me from suggesting it :)
Dest. Mask GW Interface 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.0 LAN & Wireless 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.0 LAN & Wireless 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 WAN (Internet)
Thanks for your help
Otto

the problem with that, and I see no way of fixing it in your current config, is that the Linksys router is not being seen by your firewall software/DHCP server as an internal part of your network, but as say.....part of the internet, and you have your firwall software enabled to block external incomming network comunications, which is what a firewall is used for. So I see no way of fixing the problem in your current config. You have to bring the Linksys router into your network side of your DHCP software.
Robert....

I've *never* heard anyone else say that! :-)
Are you from Greenland? That's about the only place where people are ever born and raised "quite a bit" north of 71N.
We could share a few jokes about southerners...
As I said:
But, I've also not figured out how to access a LAN through the WAN/Internet port, and would not be surprised if you can't do it. The whole point of the arrangement the WRT54G has is to separate WAN and LAN traffic.
Darned kids get hard to trick into things with they get that big. (I was thinking of a skinny 14 year old...)
Everything addressed to any 192.168.x.x address is going to be sent to the LAN & Wireless ports (i.e., *not* the WAN port).
Everything outside that address range will be sent to the WAN port, addressed to 192.168.0.1.
What you need to do is connect to one of the LAN ports. Hmmm... I haven't tried it, but I suppose that just adding a second connection, between one of the LAN ports and your hub, just for LAN traffic, might work. Keep the existing WAN connection, as it will handle all non LAN addressed traffic (sent to the firewall).

Barrow is at 71.29 degrees, or 71 degrees 17 minutes, roughly 340 miles north of the Arctic Circle and 1300 miles south of the North Pole.
Prudhoe Bay is at 70 degrees 12 minutes, so it's very close to the same as the northern tip of Norway.
Ukpeagvik is the Inupiat (Eskimo) name for what is today known as Barrow.
Yeah, like how we have 6 months of pitch black darkness, and then the sun comes up and stays up for 6 months. :-)
Well, you're doing better than me! I couldn't get access to the Internet doing that until I changed the default route to be on the LAN & Wireless port (which I could not do with the LinkSys firmware, but could when I installed 3rd party firmware).
Now the trouble I have is that a WRE54G range extender that worked fine with the WRT54G before I changed firmware doesn't seem to work with the new firmware... But since I've got a second WRT54G and with the new firmware it can be used as a repeater, I'm not too upset by that.

Hi Floyd, Dang, I had to go to the book store and find myself a really big atlas to get this one cleared up. I guess I could say that "it depends of your definition of 'quite a bit'" but I now have to admit, you got me beat by somehwere between 25 and 50 miles. Very unscientifically measured with the edge of a napkin in a National Geographic atlas, but it looks like you're about 300 or so miles north of the Arctic Circle, while I used to be about 250 or so miles north. I couldn't see the exact degree, but I'm from 70+ degrees north, so you got me at 71. I didn't realize just exactly where Point Barrow is. I'm pretty sure I'm north of Prudhoe Bay, but so is Point Barrow. And I'm sorry to say but I never found Ukpeagvik on the map. Oh, I'm from the extreme northeastern part of Norway. A city called Vadsø.
We can still share jokes about southerners though.
I think this is the problem in a nutshell. It looks like the Linksys is not designed to be a part of a network, but rather to be the whole network. This is probably one of the main differences between the Aironet and the Linksys, the latter doesn't play well with others. I guess we shouldn't be too surprised by this, since the unit is a "home network" device.
It's getting harder and harder. He may have me figured out by now :)
Ok, so what happens if I disconnect the WAN connection to the 3Com hub and hook at X-over cable between the Linksys LAN side and the 3Com? Hang on a sec,
Well, I'll be danged... It all works.
Ok, that's what you're suggesting. And it works just fine. I disabled the DHCP on the Linksys, gave it a "local address" of 192.168.0.49, disconnected the WAN cable, hooked a x-over cable between LAN port #2 on the Linksys to the 3Com hub, and fired up the laptop. It got an IP from the 192.168.0.1 DHCP server (The IPcop Firewall), and all computers are now in a single work group and I can move the kids MP3 files without a thumbdrive. And everybody can get to the Internet, no secondary connection needed.
In retrospect this is obvious, and we should have thought about it right away. Ahh... Life is good :)
Thanks for all your help. I couldn't have done it without you.
Otto

The climate here is significantly different than in Norway at the same latitude though. You've got that warm North Atlantic Current washing the shores all the way to the tip of Norway. Alaska's weather is more or less controlled by a south-to-north jet stream. In the Interior of Alaska we get temps as low as -80F (-62C) in the winter and +100F (37C) in the summer.
Here in Barrow we do have weather somewhat moderated by the Arctic Ocean. Our record high is only 26C and the record low is -49C. Our average temperature is about 3-6C colder than any place else in Alaska though! (But I lived in the Interior for 20 years, and like this a *lot* better.)
Yeah! I've always gotten a kick out of seeing little kids out playing a 2AM in the morning. What good is a summer if it gets dark?!!
I finally got mine to work exactly as I wanted too. By setting it for a Static IP, and it turns out that despite what the route table says, it routes what it says goes to the WAN port to the LAN ports too.
So once I had that worked out, I went back to the Satori firmware, mostly because I can telnet into it and look at things like the received signal levels, and change the tx power output and antenna configuration.
The issue I was having with the Satori firmware was making it work with a LinkSys WRE54G repeater. It worked well when the WRT54G had the LinkSys firmware, but took some fiddling (adding a MAC address for the repeater in the WDS configuration) to get it to work with Satori firmware.
So with that working, I've been able to take the repeater across the road to another building and properly align antennas based on measured signal strength rather that wild guesses about where it would get a good signal. The difference between a signal that wanders from -85 to -91 dBm, and one that never gets worse than about -78 dBm, is significant!
Yep.
One forgiving thing though, these things are basically dirt cheap...
Yep, the new firmware added another dimension to what had to be configured to match. Oddly, using another WRT54G with the Satori firmware was just a piece of cake to set up as a repeater (or for that matter as a client, neither of which it could do with the stock firmware from LinkSys).

Hi Floyd, Ok, let me get the geography out of the way first; Vadsø, my hometown, is at 70' 05 minutes north (29' 45 min E), but Cape North - the northernmost point in Norway - is at 71' 21 min North. (I'm not 100% sure I'm reading the minutes right, but I think so.) And I'm on my way to the book store again to find out more about Alaska. I'd love to ride my motorcycle up there. There is something about the northern climates... The people are different there.
You know, that's the funniest thing; I've lived here since 1982 and I *still* cannot get used to dark summer nights. Somehow not having sunlight at night during the summer is "unnatural". Just plain wrong. I can deal with having sunshine on Christmas Day, even though it seems a little odd, but dark nights in July... Naah, that's for the birds :)
I solve the gateway problem by using an external DHCP server. Which hands out both the gateway and DNS addresses to any client that asks for them. Since the DHCP server is now connected "directly" to the LAN side of the Linksys it will answer requests from the wireless side too.
I haven't tried to do this with the internal DHCP server, but I don't see why it couldn't be done. Or you could put in static addresses.
Of course I had an ulterior motive for doing this; I have an experimental set-up at work using a WRT54G to try out using wireless in a warehouse type environment. Well, of course plans change and now it has to work correctly as they need to start using it in a semi-production setting. Same problem; laptop needs to log in to the domain, authenticate, and run a database application. I did the same thing to it, disconnected the WAN port, using x-over lan to lan, disabled the internal DHCP and things are humming just dandy. The supervisor told me later today that if this thing keeps on working like this, it can be "experimental" until doomsday's early afternoon, but he's not giving it back. It saves him a ton of work.
I'm sorry to say that you're on your own with that one. I've never seen the rage extender, so I have no idea about why it doesn't work. But the change of firmware probably have something to do with it :)
Again, thanks for your help.
Otto