Setting up a DSL router

[b4u]

Hi,

I'll configure a DSL router today, and I just want to check if everything would work fine, and if I'm missing something.

We're talking of a win2k network, with the following caracteristics:

Server Name: server01
Static IP: 192.168.0.1
DHCP settings: Leases from 192.168.0.100 to 192.168.0.200, with options: 006 DNS Servers -> 192.168.0.1
DNS is installed.
It's a domain controler with AD.
Everithing is working fine in the network.

We have an 8-port switch from conceptronic.


Now the router:

I brought a Conceptronic Router with ADSL modem incorporated and a 4-port switch. The IP of the router is 192.168.1.254.

I connected a cross-link cable from the 8th port of the switch to the 1st port of the router. From the server, I tried to ping the router, with no success. I connected an USB cable from the router to the server, installed the suplied driver, and the server configures a secondary network adapter. No pinging the router works fine.

The question here is, I'll add the option 003 Router -> 192.168.1.254 to the DHCP scope options, so that all connected clients will receive from the DHCP the info about the Router/Gateway. I have not yet tested it, but should it work this way? I mean, the USB cable and driver I used on the server, serves the only purpose of allowing the server to ping/web-configure the router. But with that option added to the DHCP, will the clients be able to ping the router and/or use the switch to access the internet?

My question here is more related to the fact that I have my network using 192.168.0.? with subnet 255.255.255.0, and if it will have any sort of conflict/non-accessible-problem when connecting something 192.168.1.?

Thank you.

 

[ktwebb]

"and if it will have any sort of conflict/non-accessible-problem when connecting something 192.168.1.?"

Yep. Unless you have something routing between those two subnets.

I'm real confused as to why you would have setup the LAN this way. Doesn't make much sense. I mean, if you don't want to let the router handle DHCP, perhaps to learn on the server, then at least match the local addressing scheme. If the router is a 192.168.1 /24 then put your DHCP server on that segment as well. Turn off the DHCP server on the router. I suppose you may be making this harder than it needs to be for a reason but it isn't apparent or explained in the post.

 

[b4u]

Originally posted by: ktwebb
"and if it will have any sort of conflict/non-accessible-problem when connecting something 192.168.1.?"

Yep. Unless you have something routing between those two subnets.

I'm real confused as to why you would have setup the LAN this way. Doesn't make much sense. I mean, if you don't want to let the router handle DHCP, perhaps to learn on the server, then at least match the local addressing scheme. If the router is a 192.168.1 /24 then put your DHCP server on that segment as well. Turn off the DHCP server on the router. I suppose you may be making this harder than it needs to be for a reason but it isn't apparent or explained in the post.

Well, I don't really want to make it complicated

I was thinking that I'll probably be fine without problems if I disable the router's DHCP, change it's IP address (LAN side) for something like 192.168.0.2 and set that IP on the 003 Router option on my server's DHCP side ... then every workstation could ping the machine, and access the internet. That's my thought on making it simple.

Also I really need every machine to have the gateway setup (when checking on "ipconfig /all", for instance), so that everyone can access the web. Am I right?

 

[ktwebb]

Jsut let the router handle DHCP. I would anyway unless your trying to study for a test or something and need to learn windows server DHCP addressing. Modem to Router's WAN port. Everything else runs off the switch(LAN) side of the device via cat5. That way there is nothing to configure.