• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Setting up a third router on the same network

R

Ragnarb

Member
Hey all.

I'm trying to set up a third router on my company's network and I am not quite familiar with how this works. I looked at the second router which was previously set up, and saw that it was set to "bridge operation mode" as opposed to router, with its default gateway pointing to the main router. Its IP is also 192.168.112.2, and the main router's IP is 192.168.112.1.

So it is the third router that I need to set up, and I'm wondering what it is that I must do. Here's my proposal (and please correct me if I'm wrong, or tell me if I'm right):

1. Change the big router's starting IP for the DHCP to 192.168.112.4 (seeing as I'll be using 192.168.112.3 for the third router).
2. Turn off DHCP on the third router.
3. Change the third router's IP to 192.168.112.3
4. Sit back and enjoy?

And an optional question: Will this help for roaming? I tried to set up roaming earlier (with the third router using the IP 192.168.1.1 and therefore being on a network of its own) and that didn't work very well.
 
Why are you doing this - just using this to extend a wireless network?

Double-NAT is a bad idea. But if you put them all on the same network, and are just trying to extend your WiFi, yes, you want to use roaming. Otherwise, you're correct - set up the new WAP (it's not a router if it's in bridge mode) just like the other one. Static gateway IP, no DHCP.

The explanation of roaming here "APPLiEs" *rimshot* to most routers, Apple or not: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4260
 
dave_the_nerd said:
Why are you doing this - just using this to extend a wireless network?

Double-NAT is a bad idea. But if you put them all on the same network, and are just trying to extend your WiFi, yes, you want to use roaming. Otherwise, you're correct - set up the new WAP (it's not a router if it's in bridge mode) just like the other one. Static gateway IP, no DHCP.

The explanation of roaming here "APPLiEs" *rimshot* to most routers, Apple or not: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4260
Click to expand...

Double-NAT?

I am trying to extend the wireless availability. Thank you for your response, thus far I haven't seen bridge mode on this router but I can and will disable the DHCP. I'm going to give this a shot.
 
Double-NAT.

http://slinkware.com/help/double-nat/

It can be made to work, but will usually cause network "quirks."

What kind of business/company is this for? What kind of budget do you have? There are commercial WiFi network solutions that usually work a lot better than just (metaphorically) duct-taping a bunch of consumer-grade WiFi routers together. Especially from a management standpoint.
 
Last edited:
dave_the_nerd said:
Double-NAT.

http://slinkware.com/help/double-nat/

It can be made to work, but will usually cause network "quirks."

What kind of business/company is this for? What kind of budget do you have? There are commercial WiFi network solutions that usually work a lot better than just (metaphorically) duct-taping a bunch of consumer-grade WiFi routers together. Especially from a management standpoint.
Click to expand...

I have the ability to purchase some new hardware if necessary. At the moment my issue seems to be that I don't know how to access the main router/default gateway. I've tried entering the IP (192.168.112.1) into my browser, even when directly connected to the gateway (I believe), but I don't get anything at all. And when I open my network map it seems to think that I'm connected to another router (192.168.112.2) which is set to bridge mode.
 
Might be because it's a Cisco 890 model ISR, seems like I might need to use a console here, which I've never touched before at all. I'm wondering whether I should avoid touching that router and simply change the IP & mode of the other router and hope for the best. The worst that could happen is an IP conflict, right?
 
Last edited:
How many people are on the wireless? You would be better off looking into WAP's, they're made for what you want to do.
 
ch33zw1z said:
How many people are on the wireless? You would be better off looking into WAP's, they're made for what you want to do.
Click to expand...

On a regular basis? Very few people, and those who are are mostly using their mobile devices or something like that. However it is important to use sometimes for visitors when they come here.

As for the WAPs, would I not still need to give it an IP on the network and then make sure I'm not using an IP that, perhaps a network printer is using or something else?
 
Ragnarb said:
On a regular basis? Very few people, and those who are are mostly using their mobile devices or something like that. However it is important to use sometimes for visitors when they come here.

As for the WAPs, would I not still need to give it an IP on the network and then make sure I'm not using an IP that, perhaps a network printer is using or something else?
Click to expand...

Yes. the WAP's would still need an IP. Anywhere outside the DHCP range in the same network will do.

If you have to use the cisco 890, maybe something like this would be what you want to do:

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

It's basically what you were going to do anyways, and avoid the double NAT because the router will not be handling DHCP, routing, or DNS requests. You want to use a LAN port as your uplink to the main router, don't use the WAN port.

or google "router as WAP"
 
Last edited:
ch33zw1z said:
Yes. the WAP's would still need an IP. Anywhere outside the DHCP range in the same network will do.

If you have to use the cisco 890, maybe something like this would be what you want to do:

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

It's basically what you were going to do anyways, and avoid the double NAT because the router will not be handling DHCP, routing, or DNS requests. You want to use a LAN port as your uplink to the main router, don't use the WAN port.

or google "router as WAP"
Click to expand...

Thank you for your response and pardon the late reply. I have a question though, how do I know what my DHCP range is? I've never connected to a router that doesn't have an easy-to-use admin interface but I'd be willing to attempt it if there's a simple command I could use to see what the range is.

The router that handles the DHCP is a Cisco 890 Model ISR. The command seems to be: "show ip dhcp pool" but I'm a bit afraid to try it out without a verification, simply because I haven't touched a router with a CLI before.
 
Last edited:
From what I've read I have 2 options here. One is to get a Console-to-serial cable and a serial-to-usb cable (since my computer doesn't have a console port), or I could attempt to Telnet into the router.
 
Ragnarb said:
Thank you for your response and pardon the late reply. I have a question though, how do I know what my DHCP range is? I've never connected to a router that doesn't have an easy-to-use admin interface but I'd be willing to attempt it if there's a simple command I could use to see what the range is.

The router that handles the DHCP is a Cisco 890 Model ISR. The command seems to be: "show ip dhcp pool" but I'm a bit afraid to try it out without a verification, simply because I haven't touched a router with a CLI before.
Click to expand...

I understand your hesitation, CLI can be daunting when you're not used to it. Any command that starts with show is safe to go ahead and run in my experience. you won't be changing config with that command.
 
Ragnarb said:
From what I've read I have 2 options here. One is to get a Console-to-serial cable and a serial-to-usb cable (since my computer doesn't have a console port), or I could attempt to Telnet into the router.
Click to expand...

Yes, those are you options. Or SSH, if it's been setup. Telnet is the easiest to do once it's up and running. Just grab Putty and telnet to the IP of the router.
 
The "show ip dhcp pool" is safe to run. As ch33zw1z said, show commands are safe to run.

You'll see something like this:

Elmo_CME#show ip dhcp pool

Pool Phone :
Utilization mark (high/low) : 100 / 0
Subnet size (first/next) : 0 / 0
Total addresses : 254
Leased addresses : 2
Pending event : none
1 subnet is currently in the pool :
Current index IP address range Leased addresses
10.10.10.3 10.10.10.1 - 10.10.10.254 2
Elmo_CME#
 
ch33zw1z said:
Yes, those are you options. Or SSH, if it's been setup. Telnet is the easiest to do once it's up and running. Just grab Putty and telnet to the IP of the router.
Click to expand...

Thanks, PuTTy seems somewhat straightforward and I immediately connected to the router without trouble. However I'm afraid I might not have the username/password. According to what I read here: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/rou...0/software/configuration/guide/SCG880-860.pdf

It seems that the default username/password was "Cisco" and "Cisco", respectively. Would I still need the credentials if I bought the cables?
 
I called the ISP, apparently the router is not for me to use or log into. The guy I spoke to said he'd sent a query to another department and they would contact me back with an IP that would be safe to use on the WAP. Thank you for your help!
 
Why are you doing this - just using this to extend a wireless network?
Click to expand...
TS does not have the effect of double NAT because his second router is in bridge mode.
I looked at the second router which was previously set up, and saw that it was set to "bridge operation mode" as opposed to router, with its default gateway pointing to the main router. Its IP is also 192.168.112.2, and the main router's IP is 192.168.112.1.
Click to expand...
Both routers are in same LAN.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top