Router under Router

The router connected to the modem can stay with the default IP address (Linksys 192.168.1.1 etc) with DHCP enabled. You will configure this router for Internet access (if DSL, usually need to enable PPPoE etc, nothing for cable usually) The next router needs a distinct IP address (change it on its configuration page to something like 192.168.1.10 (last digits should be

Your description fits two possible arrangements, neither of which will work. One is to have both routers share the same IP address on the WAN side. That will not work. The other is to connect the two routers in "series" with a LAN port of the 1st router going to the WAN port of the 2nd router. That will work only if you use different Class C IP blocks on the 2nd router. It might be possible to play with subnet masks to get them both on the same Class C block, but as I recall, many cheapo routers don't allow NAT from and to the same Class C IP block. In other words, this is a bad idea.

It would be interesting to know what you are trying to accomplish with two routers.

Did you know that you can convert one of the two routers into just an access point (bridge) by simply ignoring the WAN port. This will give you an overlapping access to the entire LAN side DHCP pool of the sole router. Wireless connections and see wired connections, etc.

Hi Jeff, thanks everyone for responding. Ok, I will explain what I need to do. We have a novell network with bordermanager. I have recycled 3 linksys wireless router g( for this I know I should have got access point). The novell bordermanager does not use dhcp. I need wireless company wide, so that people with wi-fi Pocket PCs and people with laptop can connect wireless if they need and authorized. Now that I think of, I might not need to use the same subnetwork. The main reason was: I need to VNC the clients for support, but as long I have the port forwarding I should be able to shadow those clients. The wireless router can have any subnetwork, and I would still be able to do the job.

Am I correct ?

thanks,

Giovanni

ou know that you can convert one of the two routers into just an

Hopefully, you're running IP as a protocol, not IPX/SPX. IPX/SPX does work with access points (that work on layer 2 MAC and don't know anything about higher level protocols), but the timing is really bizarre. When I tried it, performance was really erratic. Of course, none of the cheapo wireless routers will work because they route only IP.

You can assign fixed IP address to every wireless client and device, but I don't recommend it. The labour and complications (along with potential mistakes) is far to great. Portable clients, such as laptops and PDA's should use DHCP to get their IP numbers.

If you don't currently have a DHCP server, I suggest you setup one. Some companies do not enable DHCP servers as some kind of authentication and security measure, so be careful here with policy issues.

If a central DHCP server is not possible or practical, you can enable the DHCP servers in the wireless routers (used as access points) if make absolutely sure they don't have overlapping ranges. This works fine for a small number of access points, but rapidly becomes a mess with anything over perhaps 5 access points. I would suggest a single central DHCP server.

No. The problem with using an NAT router for wireless is that you can open a port to single specific client computah, but with DHCP, you could never be sure that the forwarded port leads to the specific client (as the IP address might change). Similarly, you don't know which router would have client connected. Lastly, you can open only ONE port from a router WAN port to specific client computah. If you wanted to connect to another client, you would need either a different port number, or need to reconfigure the router every time you try and connect. All you've done is transfer the fixed IP administration mess to the port number management mess. Not recommended. Use access points and a central DHCP server.

VNC port forwarding using SSH.