Re: [MLUG] ad hoc wireless and wired networks

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Brendon Oliver

unread,

Sep 29, 2008, 6:48:49 PM9/29/08

to ml...@mlug.org.au

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:45:14 am Rick Miles wrote:

> I take this to mean that the following would be possible:
> |-192.168.1.1-- gateway
> |
> |-192.168.1.2
>
> switch----- |
>
> |-192.168.1.3
> |
> |-192.168.1.4----------|--Set up as router
> |
> |--ad hoc wireless inteface
>
> 192.168.1.5---------- |
>
> I'm thinking that in such a situationt:
> 1) 192.168.1.4 would have both a wired nic and a wireless nic configured at
> boot with the same static IP.

No, don't do that - 2x devices with the same address is asking for trouble
(and I'm pretty sure just flat-out won't work).

> 2) 192.168.1.4 would have to be set up with ip forwarding
> 3) 192.168.1.5 would have the gateway 192.168.1.1 nominated in its
> configuration 4) Since this is an ad hoc connection other people will not
> be able to connect and 5) Security is provided by NAT on D-Link modem

If I understand what you want to do: your box at 192.168.1.4 (wired) will also
have a wireless adaptor running in adhoc mode right? If that's the case,
then you give the wireless adaptor an address on a different subnet, and set
up the box to route packets between the two interfaces.

At the other end, the wireless box you want to put in your garage just needs
to have an address on the same subnet as the wireless NIC in the box acting
as a wireless router... Hope that makes sense.

Cheers,

- brendon

08:43:48 up 35 days, 1:44, 2 users, load average: 0.95, 0.83, 0.59

Tony Langdon

unread,

Sep 29, 2008, 6:53:45 PM9/29/08

to ml...@mlug.org.au

At 08:45 AM 9/30/2008, you wrote:

>I take this to mean that the following would be possible:
>
> |-192.168.1.1-- gateway
> |
> |-192.168.1.2
>switch----- |
> |-192.168.1.3
> |
> |-192.168.1.4----------|--Set up as router
> |
> |--ad hoc wireless inteface
> |
> 192.168.1.5---------- |

This one won't gain you anything and will be a pain. You might as
well just use the wireless in the dlink. If you are still planning
on running 2 interfaces in the server, they must have different IP
addresses which are in different networks as per your original
message. The suggestion about ad-hoc (more correctly peer-peer) was
to avoid the expense of an access point.

>I'm thinking that in such a situationt:
>1) 192.168.1.4 would have both a wired nic and a wireless nic
>configured at boot
>with the same static IP.

Won't work. They need different IPs, unless you're actually going to
setup a BRIDGE not a router.