On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 02:03:13 -0500, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> wrote:
>Char Jackson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:55:19 -0500, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>
>>>s|b wrote:
>>>
>>>> AFAIK there is no uplinking. As for the routers:
>>>>
>>>> SMC
>>>> SMCWBR14-G2 (192.168.2.1)
>>>> <
http://www.smc.com/en-global/products/product/95/0>
>>>>
>>>> Cisco/Linksys
>>>> E2000 met DD-WRT firmware (192.168.1.1)
>>>> <
http://www.linksys.com/en-apac/products/routers/e2000>
>>>>
>>>> <
http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Linksys_E2000>
>>>>
>>>> If it's too much trouble I'm simply going for the LAN to WAN solution...
>>>
>>>Those are wireless routers with wired ports.
>>
>> I'm under the assumption that he/she only needs one or more additional
>> Ethernet ports, so it's irrelevant that they have wireless capabilities,
>> unless perhaps it comes with a recommendation to disable the wireless
>> portion.
>
>Then you are unaware of bridging wireless routers despite the article I
>mentioned. He could do it with wire. He could do it with wireless.
Well, I'm aware of wireless bridges, wireless routers, wired routers, etc.
I'm also aware that any Ethernet switch can be used as a bridge, including
every Ethernet switch included as part of a "router". Have I missed anything
so far?
>But not if the routers don't support either.
Every router that includes a switch has no choice but to support bridging.
Bridging is essentially a subset of switching.
>
>>>For some wireless routers, you can use bridging;
>>
>> Also, NAT routers (wired or wireless) that include a built in
>> switch can all be used as a switch, simply by disabling certain functions
>> (DHCP and WiFi, for example), and ignoring certain other features (the
>> router function, for example).
>
>When haven't NAT routers included a switch?
Since the advent of NAT routers, there have been models that don't include a
switch. My first router was that type, a Linksys BEFSR11, the little brother
to the BEFSR41, which had a 4-port switch. Switchless routers have been
available ever since.
>I already mentioned
>configuring the router, like disabling DHCP (which is irrelevant,
>anyway, if static IP addresses are used for the intranet hosts), to
>devolve a router to a switch.
Yeah, so did I, but I wouldn't say that disabling DHCP is optional.
>>>however, I didn't see any mention of it in the
>>>online Linksys manual (and SMC doesn't provide an online copy of the
>>>manual to see what that router can do).
>>
>> You shouldn't expect the manufacturer to talk about using their product with
>> most of its features disabled.
>
>How about a manufacturer talking about the features they *do* include?
Come on, even you must know that there's just a tiny bit of burden on the
consumer. The manufacturer isn't going to lay it all out for you. Linksys
isn't going to market a wireless router with these bullet points:
-Can be used as a wireless bridge!
-Can be used as an access point!
-Can be used as a DHCP server!
and so on.
No, they would rather sell separate devices, at least for the bridging and
AP functions, even though those devices cost significantly more while doing
significantly less.
>Linksys has an online manual. They aren't hiding features so if a
>feature isn't mentioned then it isn't there.
Obviously not true. It only means it isn't in the manual. Whether it's in
the product or not is a completely different question.
Dude, you have a helluva reach. :-) Great job making things up to justify
yourself. I'm seriously impressed.
>>> If you go LAN port to LAN port,
>>>you have to make one router subservient, like disabling its DHCP server
>>>(unless every host on that router is using static IP addressing). See:
>>>
>>>
http://kb.linksys.com/Linksys/ukp.aspx?pid=80&vw=1&articleid=3733
>>
>> I covered that in a previous post.
>
>The Linksys article was more detailed than your summarization. Sorry,
>but I don't recognize your clairvoyence in knowing the expertise of the
>OP. What, you're so vain that you cannot stand someone possibly
>overlapping your advice? Go get your virtual gun and shoot me then.
>
>>>Sorry, I have no experience with substituting the firmware of a router
>>>with the 3rd party versions, like DD-WRT.
>>
>> I have over a decade of experience with dd-wrt, but I don't see it as
>> relevant to the current discussion. Any NAT router, wired or wireless, can
>> be used as a switch (or as an access point, for that matter).
>
>None of the 3rd party firmware updates can modify or add to the feature
>set of a router? Then what's the point of installing them?
Reminder: the OP asked about connecting a couple of routers to gain one or
more additional Ethernet ports. Sometimes you get so long-winded that you
clearly forget where you started. For what the OP asked about, 3rd party
firmware isn't required. I'm surprised to see that you're surprised by that.