• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Daisy chaining routers via ethernet cable

Skyzoomer

Senior member
Sep 27, 2007
332
5
81
I'm trying to learn about daisy chaining (bridging) cheap routers for faster, reliable internet connections and speed. I want a completely wired network for computers in 4 different locations.
  1. Each location will be isolated from every other location so others cannot see or access data from another location.
  2. Each location is a self contained network that can have a wired network printer or wired NAS that can be accessed from the wired computer at that location. But no other location can access anything at another location.
  3. Each location can have wireless connections to laptops, tablets and cell phones.
I buy 4 of these cheap Asus RT-N12 routers for $29.71 each and install one at each location:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00DWFPDNO/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1

I connect ethernet cables from lan port to lan port as follows:
Main router lan port ------- lan port Router-1 lan port ------- lan port Router-2 lan port ------ etc.

Main router IP address = 192.168.1.1, DHCP server enabled, router password=boss
.... 2.4GHz, channel=1, SSID=worker2, password=fatso....... 5.0GHz, SSID=worker5, password=fatso

Router-1 IP address = 192.168.1.2, DHCP server disabled, router password=bull
.... 2.4GHz, channel=6, SSID=cow2, password=calf ....... 5.0GHz, SSID=cow5, password=calf

Router-2 IP address = 192.168.1.3, DHCP server disabled, router password=cat
.... 2.4GHz, channel=11, SSID=kitten2, password=tiger....... 5.0GHz, SSID=kitten5, password=tiger

Router-3 IP address = 192.168.1.4, DHCP server disabled, router password=dog
.... 2.4GHz, channel=3, SSID=puppy2, password=wolf ....... 5.0GHz, SSID=puppy5, password=wolf

Router-4 IP address = 192.168.1.5, DHCP server disabled, router password=hat
.... 2.4GHz, channel=8, SSID=rack2, password=brim ....... 5.0GHz, SSID=rack5, password=brim

Will this configuration do what I want as described in items 1-3 above?
Will the internet connection be slow if users at all 4 access points are watching video simultaneously?
 
Last edited:

mv2devnull

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2010
1,364
76
91
Would you say that 192.168.1.x is "isolated from, cannot see, cannot access" 192.168.1.y, if network prefix is 24?
 

JackMDS

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 25, 1999
29,156
280
126
If the general Internet feed will have bandwidth to cover all user it will work as one cohesive Network. I.e., there will not be separation/isolation between the computer on the Router's switches.

One should understand the technology behind the Hardware just calling it chaining (bridging) cheap routers for faster, reliable has nothing to do with the reality of how the technology works.

To achieve the above you need more expensive shoplifted Switches.


:cool:
 

PliotronX

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 1999
8,883
107
106
You would have to connect the WAN ports of the cascaded routers to the LAN ports of the "main" router but a single router with a smart switch and VLANs is a much better and more secure route. All of the networks behind the cascaded routers would be able to see anything on the 192.168.1.1 network as NAT only obscures the other networks from "seeing" the cascaded networks because the default gateway has to go through the "main" router.

Suggested router and switches
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
60,021
8,736
126
www.uovalor.com
Nothing you do on your home network is going to make your internet faster, since you're limited by your ISP. But yes, it is possible to daisy chain routers. It can be used to create a poor man's vlan. Essentially you have a main router, then you plug in one or more routers into that one, which will create isolated networks (I'm assuming SOHO routers here that have NAT). Of course you want to use different IP ranges for each. I would use 192.168.1.0/24 for the main router then use 10.x.x.x for the others. But that's purely a personal choice so you can use whatever range you want as long as they differ.

If you're not looking at creating isolated networks then I would just use switches instead of routers if all you need is extra ports. But none of this is going to make your internet faster. The only way to do that is to get a higher plan, if it's available.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
78,905
11,843
126
You can do it but I've found its overall easier to get a 12 or 16 port device. in the end it makes more sense.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
60,021
8,736
126
www.uovalor.com
24 port switches can be had for pretty cheap on Ebay too. So yeah if the goal is simply to have more ports I'd go that route. Heck if you don't need gig you can get a 10/100 24 port switch for VERY cheap, like under $100.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
84,620
9,247
126
Last edited:

JackMDS

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 25, 1999
29,156
280
126
This two pages describe.

1. Isolate two parts of Home Network.

http://www.ezlan.net/shield.html

The problem with setting that it might be quirky with Main Router + Secondary Router.

With more it almost sure that it is not going to work. The main problem is Port opening that get stuck because of the Different sub-net.

2. Using Wireless Routers (or Modem/Wireless Router) as a Switch with an Access Point -

http://www.ezlan.net/router_AP.html

This will work with many Wireless Router but it does Not isolate parts of the Network.

---------------------------

So the solution is VLAN as mentioned above by PliotronX

https://www.petri.com/csc_setup_a_vlan_on_a_cisco_switch


:cool:
 

Skyzoomer

Senior member
Sep 27, 2007
332
5
81
JackMDS, PliotronX and sdifox:

Thanks for your input. Would the lan to wan setup in this linksys document do what I want?
Cascading the Linksys router to another router (LAN-WAN):
https://www.linksys.com/us/support-article?articleNum=132275

Here's my configuration try #2 per that linksys article:
Main Router, 192.168.1.1, DHCP enabled
No users connected to this main router either wired or wireless.

M (wan) ------ Modem
A
I
N (lan1)--------- (wan)Asus RT-N12 router-1, 192.168.2.1, DHCP disabled
R
O (lan2)--------- (wan)Asus RT-N12 router-2, 192.168.3.1, DHCP disabled
U
T (lan3)--------- (wan)Asus RT-N12 router-3, 192.168.4.1, DHCP disabled
E
R (lan4)-------- (to unmanaged switch shown below)


S
W (lan1)--------- (wan)Asus RT-N12 router-4, 192.168.5.1, DHCP disabled
I
T (lan2)--------- (wan)Asus RT-N12 router-5, 192.168.6.1, DHCP disabled
C
H (lan3)--------- (wan)Asus RT-N12 router-6, 192.168.7.1, DHCP disabled


Unmanaged switch is just used to expand number of lan ports of main router.
All routers 1-6 have different passwords similar to what I show in my original post.

Would this configuration work?
Will it provide the isolation between routers 1-6 that I want.
 

mxnerd

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2007
6,015
854
126
Separate networks would not improve internet speed or experience just like what Red Squirrel has said.

Your configuration 2 should work except DHCP server on each router also should be enabled for it's own network.

Jack said it probably won't work because port opening that get stuck because of the different sub-net(Don't know what he meant? Too many open ports because of too many subnets?), that I have no idea if it's the case.
 
Last edited:

mv2devnull

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2010
1,364
76
91
Jack said it probably won't work because port opening that get stuck ...
The double-NAT:
Code:
Remote host ----[ISP subnet]---- (NAT1)Main router ----[192.168.1/24]---- (NAT2)Router-1 ----[192.168.2/24]---- Client
The Main router has some address x.y.z.w on its wan-port.

Client sends something to remote host.
Router-1 does NAT. The Main router thinks that it is talking to Router-1.
Main router does NAT. The remote host thinks that it is talking to x.y.z.w (i.e. the Main router).
The reply should find its way back, since NAT-tables on both routers should remember.

If the remote host should start a conversation with the client,
then it would have to send to Main router.
Main router should have a port forwarding to Router-1. (Or forwardings to all 6 routers.)
Router-1 should have a port forwarding to Client.

Not trivial.
 

Skyzoomer

Senior member
Sep 27, 2007
332
5
81
Separate networks would not improve internet speed or experience just like what Red Squirrel has said.

Your configuration 2 should work except DHCP server on each router also should be enabled for it's own network.

Jack said it probably won't work because port opening that get stuck because of the different sub-net(Don't know what he meant? Too many open ports because of too many subnets?), that I have no idea if it's the case.
Hi mxnerd,

Oh yes, I missed that DHCP server on each slave router should be enabled per that linksys article I linked to. If I do that, does the DHCP server in the main router (no users except for slave routers connected) need to be enabled or disabled?

As far as improving internet speed, would 300 Mbps be fine for about 2 users per router (6 routers) for a total of 12 users simultaneously watching youtube videos?
 

mxnerd

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2007
6,015
854
126
The double-NAT:
Code:
Remote host ----[ISP subnet]---- (NAT1)Main router ----[192.168.1/24]---- (NAT2)Router-1 ----[192.168.2/24]---- Client
The Main router has some address x.y.z.w on its wan-port.

Client sends something to remote host.
Router-1 does NAT. The Main router thinks that it is talking to Router-1.
Main router does NAT. The remote host thinks that it is talking to x.y.z.w (i.e. the Main router).
The reply should find its way back, since NAT-tables on both routers should remember.

If the remote host should start a conversation with the client,
then it would have to send to Main router.
Main router should have a port forwarding to Router-1. (Or forwardings to all 6 routers.)
Router-1 should have a port forwarding to Client.

Not trivial.
I know double NAT port forwarding is not trivial, but OP did not mention any traffic that's initiating from remote host. It seems all he wants is to isolate networks.

If he needs to host some services on his network, I would completely vote against daisy chaining/cascading routers.
 

mxnerd

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2007
6,015
854
126
Hi mxnerd,

Does the DHCP server in the main router (no users except for slave routers connected) need to be enabled or disabled?
Both are OK. Fixed will be better if something goes wrong and you know which one to look for.

As far as improving internet speed, would 300 Mbps be fine for about 2 users per router (6 routers) for a total of 12 users simultaneously watching youtube videos?
That's 25Mbps for each user, should be enough. 1080p is about 6Mbps.

https://www.google.com/get/videoqualityreport/#methodology

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2853702?hl=en
 

Skyzoomer

Senior member
Sep 27, 2007
332
5
81

mxnerd

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2007
6,015
854
126
You can configure main router's LAN IP like192.168.0.10 and

router 1 WAN IP 192.168.0.1 , GW 192.168.0.10, LAN IP 192.168.1.1
router 2 WAN IP 192.168.0.2 , GW 192.168.0.10, LAN IP 192.168.2.1
...
router 6 WAN IP 192.168.0.6 , GW 192.168.0.10, LAN IP 192.168.6.1

so all numbers line up.

main router should also go with more powerful ones since it will handle a lot more traffic than the one you use for separate networks.
 
Last edited:

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
84,620
9,247
126
Over complicating things.

Wan - router with dhcp server configured - cisco switch uplink port --- multiple wifi routers configured as wap, not daisy chaining, direct from wap to cisco switch.
Configure cisco switch protected port on the links to the waps but not the uplink port to router
Anything connected to wap1 can talk to computers connected to wap 1 but not wap2,3,4, etc and they maintain internet access.

If you want a wap configured to access all the computers just don't configure the port that wap is connected to on cisco switch as protected.

https://supportforums.cisco.com/t5/lan-switching-and-routing/port-isolation-catalyst-2950/td-p/1226008


Doesn't have to be cisco, I am sure other manufacturer implemented the same thing.


Netgear
https://kb.netgear.com/21793/What-are-protected-ports-and-how-do-they-work-with-my-managed-switch

Nortel/Avaya
https://forums.networkinfrastructure.info/nortel-ethernet-switching/baystacl-5520-24t-pwr-private-vlan-(port-isolation)/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mxnerd

mv2devnull

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2010
1,364
76
91
does the DHCP server in the main router (no users except for slave routers connected) need to be enabled or disabled?
These simple routers do configure (by default) their WAN-port via DHCP from ISP's DHCP server. If you connect slave router(s WAN-port) to main router, then the main router is "ISP" fro the slave router. IMHO, it is easier to let the main router act as DHCP server for the slaves than to manually configure the WAN-port of each slave.


That said, the "port isolation" is a great option.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
33,195
11,933
146
These simple routers do configure (by default) their WAN-port via DHCP from ISP's DHCP server. If you connect slave router(s WAN-port) to main router, then the main router is "ISP" fro the slave router. IMHO, it is easier to let the main router act as DHCP server for the slaves than to manually configure the WAN-port of each slave.


That said, the "port isolation" is a great option.
I would mostly agree with the DHCP part, take it a step further and use the static DHCP function on the main router for the other devices Mac addresses
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY