Need some help with some semi-advanced WAN/LAN setup

[EpsiIon]

Here's the setup:

There is a cable modem talking to the outside world.
The cable modem is connected via ethernet to a switch.
There are TWO routers plugged into the switch with separate, statically configured WAN IP addresses (both are D-Link DGL-4300's, if that matters to you).
My machine has 2 NICS, each connected to one of these routers.
Let's say that, internally, one router is using 192.168.0.* and other is using 192.168.1.*.
I want all internet-bound traffic to go out on the 0 interface while retaining the LAN connection on the 1 interface (and PREVENTING any internet-bound traffic from using the router on this interface).
I'm using Windows XP.
Is there a better way of doing this than changing the metric settings for each interface under Advanced TCP/IP settings?

Thanks in advance

 

[nweaver]

remove the default gateway on the 192.168.1.* interface...most boxes struggle with dual gateways anyway.

 

[kevnich2]

What's the purpose of this?

 

[jlazzaro]

Originally posted by: kevnich2
What's the purpose of this?

the more convoluted the setup, the better it performs...duh.

edit: we have identical post counts

 

[JackMDS]

It does not really matter what you do.

Since it is two independent external IPs, at the ISP server one does not know about the other and there would not be coordination between the In and the out.

It is kind like posting.

I have two cars, can I open the two doors put one leg in one car, and the Other leg in the second car.

Then Drive the two cars at the same time, one to the Mall, and the other one to the cleaner.:shocked:

 

[kevnich2]

Originally posted by: JackMDS
It does not really matter what you do.

Since it is two independent external IPs, at the ISP server one does not know about the other and there would not be coordination between the In and the out.

It is kind like posting.

I have two cars, can I open the two doors put one leg in one car, and the Other leg in the second car.

Then Drive the two cars at the same time, one to the Mall, and the other one to the cleaner.:shocked:

This is what I was curious about, what's the point of the OP's setup. The only thing I can see that this would do is make it that much more complicated and when it breaks, that much harder to figure out how to fix. Why not Keep It Simple Stupid

 

[yuppiejr]

Hmm, I hacked up an answer then realized it makes no sense without knowing what the point of this exercise is...

There might be a benefit if you ran two routers behind two incoming WAN connections from a load balancing or availability perspective, but why two routers behind a single WAN interface? Since internal traffic is going to be routed to other LAN switch ports before it hits the WAN based the switch's MAC address table this seems like an overly complex way to do what a single router & switch is already doing.

Need more info...

 

[Genx87]

It is a Friday, drinks on my mind, even trying to envision such a setup gives me a headache.

With that, I am outta here for the weekend. Good lukc OP.

 

[EpsiIon]

Originally posted by: nweaver
remove the default gateway on the 192.168.1.* interface...most boxes struggle with dual gateways anyway.

Hmm, I like the suggestion. Do you know if there's any way to do this and still use DHCP on that interface?

In any case, thanks. I'll give it a shot.


For the rest of you:

Sorry, didn't realize you'd need to understand why I want this to answer the question.

The driving reason:
I want to remain on an internal network with my housemates (the 192.168.1.* interface). A machine on this network not owned by me is configured to host WarCraft III games. I want to be able to host WarCraft III games on either/both that machine and my machine without reconfiguring routers.

More general reason:
I'd like to remain on an internal network with my housemates and be able to control my external connection independently of their setup. This could apply to any number of services. One housemate runs a webserver behind the communal router. I'd like the option of running my own behind my router.

Originally posted by: kevnich2

Originally posted by: JackMDS
It does not really matter what you do.

Since it is two independent external IPs, at the ISP server one does not know about the other and there would not be coordination between the In and the out.

It is kind like posting.

I have two cars, can I open the two doors put one leg in one car, and the Other leg in the second car.

Then Drive the two cars at the same time, one to the Mall, and the other one to the cleaner.:shocked:

This is what I was curious about, what's the point of the OP's setup. The only thing I can see that this would do is make it that much more complicated and when it breaks, that much harder to figure out how to fix. Why not Keep It Simple Stupid

You're both missing an important use case: Say I can't force my external connection attempts to use a specific interface to access the internet. I log on to Battle.net, but happen to connect through the communal router (which is configured for hosting games on somebody else's machine). When I try to host a game, I'll advertise the wrong IP to Battle.net and attempts to join it will be forwarded to the wrong system.

 

[EpsiIon]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Hmm, I hacked up an answer then realized it makes no sense without knowing what the point of this exercise is...

There might be a benefit if you ran two routers behind two incoming WAN connections from a load balancing or availability perspective, but why two routers behind a single WAN interface? Since internal traffic is going to be routed to other LAN switch ports before it hits the WAN based the switch's MAC address table this seems like an overly complex way to do what a single router & switch is already doing.

Need more info...

There are two WAN interfaces at the IP level.

 

[EpsiIon]

Crap. Hit Quote instead of Edit.

 

[EpsiIon]

Worst. Poster. Ever.

That's what I get for trying to edit things at 2:30 AM