Two Routers

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Patrick Whittle

unread,
Oct 31, 2009, 6:08:43 PM10/31/09
to
Do you know what a second router will do when plugged in? My main router
got
192.168.0.1
and I thought by plugging in a second router, it would get assigned:
192.168.1.1

Bill Grant

unread,
Oct 31, 2009, 6:38:35 PM10/31/09
to
Where did you think that it would "get" this IP from?

If you are talking about an ADSL modem/router, the private IP address is
pre-configured, and you may or may not be able to change it. In any case, a
machine will only use it if it is in the same IP subnet as the router IP.


"Patrick Whittle" <patrick...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#JEU1anW...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

Bill Grant

unread,
Oct 31, 2009, 6:50:02 PM10/31/09
to
On re-reading it, I see that the last sentence is not really clear. It
should read " In any case, a machine will only use this router if it is in
the same IP subnet as the router's IP address."

"Bill Grant" <not.available@online> wrote in message
news:OwWOhrnW...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

Jim

unread,
Nov 1, 2009, 11:36:57 AM11/1/09
to

"Patrick Whittle" <patrick...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23JEU1an...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Your first router "got" 192.168.0.1 because that is the default.
The second router will "get" and IP address from the pool of LAN addreses
for the first router. If your intent is to create a LAN which contains all
of the computers connected to both routers, this scheme is not correct.

Instead, you convert the second router to a switch as described in your
router manual.

Jim

Ace Fekay [MCT]

unread,
Nov 1, 2009, 1:00:38 PM11/1/09
to
"Patrick Whittle" <patrick...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23JEU1an...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...


Patrick,

If you are adding a router to your internal network, possibly to add an
additional subnet at your location, it must be MANUALLY configured. Do not
rely on the premise that simply plugging it in and expecting it to work. It
must be assigned a manual configuration based on the design that you have
set on paper PRIOR to plugging it in.

This is assuming you will not be using the NAT feature, and that you are
using it as a true router, and that you will need to set static routes on
the edge or any leading router to know of how to get to the subnet behind
the new router.

Here is an example of a routed network.

Static Route Example
http://www.fekay.com/supportblogs/StaticRoutingExample.jpg


--
Ace

This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
confers no rights.

Please reply back to the newsgroup or forum for collaboration benefit among
responding engineers, and to help others benefit from your resolution.

Ace Fekay, MCT, MCITP EA, MCTS Windows 2008 & Exchange 2007, MCSE & MCSA
2003/2000, MCSA Messaging 2003
Microsoft Certified Trainer

For urgent issues, please contact Microsoft PSS directly. Please check
http://support.microsoft.com for regional support phone numbers.


Phillip Windell

unread,
Nov 2, 2009, 2:23:21 PM11/2/09
to
"Patrick Whittle" <patrick...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23JEU1an...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...


As you can see by the replys,...there is confusion here.

Are these "real" routers meant to route IP# segments on a LAN?

...or are they cheap "home-user-NAT-firewalls" that are falsely called
routers in retail stores?

--
Phillip Windell

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------


Ace Fekay [MCT]

unread,
Nov 2, 2009, 3:02:32 PM11/2/09
to
"Phillip Windell" <philw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uZXmzH$WKHA...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...


I believe they are off the shelf, retail store bought Netgears or Linksys
units. They are not true routers such as a Cisco 2621, or Cisco ASA, PIX,
etc.

Ace


Patrick Whittle

unread,
Nov 2, 2009, 4:07:40 PM11/2/09
to
Very good point. I worked for a large international corporation in the
ninties up until 2003, and as soon as I saw home routers becoming popular, I
baulked at the idea of choice word 'router' that marketers decided to use.

My main router is a D-Link DIR-825 wireless, and I am trying to setup a
second segment with a D-Link DI624. My Active Directory had no problem
seeing the router with address: 10.14.208.0/20
...but I lost what I initially had in Active Direcrtory Sites & Services.
The subnet still exists in AD, but I can no-longer get to the DI624 router.

http://www.dlink.ca/products/?pid=681
http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=6

"Phillip Windell" <philw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uZXmzH$WKHA...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Phillip Windell

unread,
Nov 2, 2009, 5:44:29 PM11/2/09
to

"Patrick Whittle" <patrick...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebtADCAX...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Very good point. I worked for a large international corporation in the
> ninties up until 2003, and as soon as I saw home routers becoming popular,
> I baulked at the idea of choice word 'router' that marketers decided to
> use.

Same here :-)

> My main router is a D-Link DIR-825 wireless, and I am trying to setup a
> second segment with a D-Link DI624. My Active Directory had no problem
> seeing the router with address: 10.14.208.0/20
> ...but I lost what I initially had in Active Direcrtory Sites & Services.
> The subnet still exists in AD, but I can no-longer get to the DI624
> router.

You can't use it to create a new LAN segment because it is not a "real"
router. What you are trying to do is like trying to create a new segment
with an over-simplified NAT Firewall,...it doesn't work like that.

You could create a router with a Windows Server OS and RRAS or you can do it
with Linux. Other than that, you need to buy a real router.

If you buy a commercial grade Firewall (won't find one in a retail store)
then some of them can have multiple LAN Interfaces which allow the Firewall
to pull "double-duty" as both a Firewall and a LAN Router.

Jan M. Nelken

unread,
Nov 2, 2009, 10:13:42 PM11/2/09
to
Patrick Whittle wrote:

> My main router is a D-Link DIR-825 wireless, and I am trying to setup a
> second segment with a D-Link DI624. My Active Directory had no problem
> seeing the router with address: 10.14.208.0/20
> ...but I lost what I initially had in Active Direcrtory Sites &
> Services. The subnet still exists in AD, but I can no-longer get to the
> DI624 router.

Please excuse my ignorance - but this is what I thought would be possible:


1.2.3.4
|
|
============ Router A =============
|
192.168.1.10 )(address hardcoded for port 1 in Router A)
|
|

== Router B ==
|
192.168.1.100 - 107
(range of addresses available
to ports on Router A)

So I would get a "range" of client machines able to access internet at 1.2.3.4
and each other at 192.168.1.100 - 192.168.1.107

If I add Router C at port 2 of Router A (hardcoded at 192.168.2.10) I could get
another range of client machines able to access internet at 1.2.3.4 and each
other at 192.168.2.100 - 192.168.2.107) and so on... right?

Some configuration of default routes would be needed too.


jan M. Nelken


Bill Grant

unread,
Nov 2, 2009, 11:01:18 PM11/2/09
to

"Jan M. Nelken" <Unknow...@Invalid.Domain> wrote in message
news:eKi0mODX...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

You don't need two routers for that. You just need one router with two
private interfaces.

Internet
|
Public IP
NAT
|
|------------------|
LAN 1 LAN 2

Jan M. Nelken

unread,
Nov 2, 2009, 11:31:40 PM11/2/09
to

Bill Grant wrote:

> You don't need two routers for that. You just need one router with two
> private interfaces.
>
> Internet
> |
> Public IP
> NAT
> |
> |------------------|
> LAN 1 LAN 2
>
>

I had in mind consumer product - router/n-port switch
like linksys BEFSR41 or BEFSR81

Jan M. Nelken

Ace Fekay [MCT]

unread,
Nov 3, 2009, 12:49:55 AM11/3/09
to
"Jan M. Nelken" <Unknow...@Invalid.Domain> wrote in message
news:eKi0mODX...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...


This looks like a NAT to NAT diagram, and with NAT, it's a bit more complex.
Besides, if AD is involved, which is what Patrick is using, AD communication
fails across a NAT. I do believe (please correct me on this), is that some
of the retail NAT devices have the capabilities to be put into 'corporate'
mode (or whatever the manuf. refers to it as) to allow it to route, instead
of NAT.

Ace


Patrick Whittle

unread,
Nov 3, 2009, 10:16:32 AM11/3/09
to
All that I was thinking, was to configure my second router first at a
different location, and then bringing the DI624 to my new office in Toronto.
This is why I chose: 10.14.208.0 as the second segment.

"Ace Fekay [MCT]" <ace...@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message
news:uIA$5lEXKH...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Ace Fekay [MCT]

unread,
Nov 3, 2009, 12:12:15 PM11/3/09
to
"Patrick Whittle" <patrick...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OTgWdiJX...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> All that I was thinking, was to configure my second router first at a
> different location, and then bringing the DI624 to my new office in
> Toronto. This is why I chose: 10.14.208.0 as the second segment.


I see, it's at a different location, not at the same location? That
complicates things. You will need two routers that supports VPN tunnels at
both ends to effectively connect the two locations together to 'appear' as
if they are on the same network. Have you checked the devices that you have
if they support this feature?

Ace


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages