I'm trying to use 2 routers on 1 cable modem!

[PCapprentice]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: PCapprentice

I think a switch to switch connection doesn't require a cross over cable. Plug the 100ft cable into the switch side of your router and then plug your desktop and laptop into the other switch ports on the router. Make sure that all the routing functions on your router are disabled.

ok codewiz, will do. thanks

On the second router, make sure it has an ip address in the correct subnet, and make sure that ip address is not used by anything else, including the original router. Turn off dhcp on the second router. The 100ft router to router connection will require either a crossover cable or the use of one of either router's uplink ports (if you get a link light, you did it right), and that connection is made to one of the LAN ports on the second router, not the WAN port. That's all there is to it.

Thanks for you help, I'll try this when I get home and hopefully i can do it!

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
Er, I'm doing that right now.

Cable modem to WAN PORT on Router 1. And then regular Cat5 cable on a random port on Router 1 to WAN PORT on Router 2.

Didn't change any settings. Didn't mess w/ DHCP. Everything worked perfectly right off the bat.

(For those wondering why I am doing this, is because I have a print server on Router 1, while Router 2 doesn't and is used for wireless.)

Then unless Router 2 is in bridge mode (if it has one), you're doing two NAT translations for the traffic that goes to hosts on Router 2's LAN. Nothing wrong with that, unless you want to open ports for hosts off Router 2, in which case you'll have to do it twice. Also, if you want to send ip traffic from hosts off of Router 1 to hosts off of Router 2, you'll want to either turn on RIP or configure a static route on Router 1.

 

[Dragnov]

Then unless Router 2 is in bridge mode (if it has one), you're doing two NAT translations for the traffic that goes to hosts on Router 2's LAN. Nothing wrong with that, unless you want to open ports for hosts off Router 2, in which case you'll have to do it twice. Also, if you want to send ip traffic from hosts off of Router 1 to hosts off of Router 2, you'll want to either turn on RIP or configure a static route on Router 1.

Nah don't need any ports open or what not on my laptop during wireless. When I'm wireless, only using it for school work and web browsing.

I just hook it up to the wired docking station if I want to do anything else like transfering files. It's much faster that way anyways.

 

[boggsie]

Wouldn't one an application that calls for this be a DMZ for server access?

[Internet]
|
|
[Cable]
|
|
R_1<--[open ports connecting to a server]
|
|
R_2<--[all ports blocked to outside world]
|
|<--[Internal LAN]

 

[thomsbrain]

for what you're describing, you are much better off just buying a cheap-ass hub and plugging into into your existing 100 foot cable.

 

[PCapprentice]

Originally posted by: Ameesh
dont plug it into the wan port just plug it into one of the lan ports and your router/switch will work fine.

Well, I'm sure everyones ideas were going to work and I thank you for your input. But I had to try to easiest way and damn Ameesh it worked just like that.

this was a nice and fun topic!

 

[GermyBoy]

Connect a point from router A to router B. Chances are GOOD that you have a router/switch, which will then in turn turn the second router into a switch, allowing you a signal boost or whatever it is you're looking for, as well as keeping everything between the routers 100MBit, instead of 100MBit for interconnected points, and 10MBit between routers.

Bye.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Encryptic

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Why?

That's the first question I'd ask. What on earth are you trying to accomplish?

Theres plenty of reasons to do this. I myself have 1 router hooked up to my dsl modem, and 2 more routers hooked up to my first router ( 1 wireless, 1 not ). The other wired router is all the way in my living room so I can hookup my Xbox/PS2/htpc. The wireless router is there for obvious reasons.

Except for your wireless router there is no reason to do this. If you have two wired routers, the second router only acts as a switch so why not just buy a switch

You don't even need the wireless router. You just need it as an access point. Wireless routers are just cheaper than Access points.

Now that he explained the situation I understand BUT he is not going to be using the second router as a router. It is effectively just being used like a switch.

Cause the 2nd router was only a penny (Netgear RP614 v2) The wireless router only cost me $15.00 (D-link 614+)

 

[GeneValgene]

i have the exact same setup that you are wanting to do. the thing is, i had an extra router lying around so i thought i might as well use it instead of buying another hub or switch.

this is basically the same as what everyone has already said. i have the dsl modem plugged into the WAN on the first router. then i connect a regular port on the first router to the uplink port on the second router. turn off DHCP on teh second router. works fine for me.

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: PCapprentice
Well i hope you guys can help me out. I posted this in the networking forum but its seems as though there are a zillion more people in this forum I'm trying to connect 2 routers with my single cable modem. I thought I could simply connect the cable modem to the wan of router A and then connect a port from A to the Wan of router B. It works!!! about 50% of the time. Am I missing something here? I am not a networking guru, but I'm hoping there is a nice easy way for this to work. Any help would be appreciated

You should read into something that calls a "routing table". But why on earth are you trying to connect one router to another? unless your home network exceeds the routers DHCP capacity.... BAWAAAAGAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... i can't help but laugh.

EDIT: BTW... by connecting one router to another won't do jack for you.

 

[yruffostsif]

nothing like adding another useless hop for you packets to travel accross

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: yruffostsif
nothing like adding another useless hop for you packets to travel accross

and the funny thing is... you don't even have to add another router to do it.

 

[abracadabra1]

This really is a pain...I couldn't get my connection to work at any of my home computers...I later realized it was because my dsl modem was in fact a router and so both devices were trying to assign IPs to the comps NICs and everything went to sh!te.

 

[rgwalt]

Look for a hub or a switch with an uplink port. This shouldn't run you too much $$$, and it will do what you need it to do.

Ryan

 

[ebaycj]

you need this:
cable modem
|
|
Router1 WAN Port

and then this:
Router1 LAN Port (any one of them will work)
|
|
(100ft cable)
|
|
|
'Router2' LAN Port (any one of them will work)

'Router2''s WAN port must be empty.

If you cant get the router1 -> router2 connection to work, it is because you need a crossover cable. (Some products are smart enough to work without a crossover cable). Router1 will be the only one doing any routing. The ports on router2 will basically be an 'extension' of router1's LAN Ports.

If you were to go buy a 10/100 switch or a 10/100 hub (say, an 8 port model), and connected it in place of router2, exactly as i have shown above, it would work exactly the same. Hence, you are not using the 'routing' function on router2, you are merely using it for its built in switch.

ebaycj