[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Free Show | Home]

Home networking help. How do I get these two networks to

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 59
Thread images: 5

Home networking help. How do I get these two networks to talk to each other?
>>
Sage and kill yourself
>>
Router 1 is - Netgear home router
Router 2 is a Cisco 2800 series
>>
>>56071983
Heaven forbid someone asks an actual technical question instead of "rate my wallpaper".
>>
The image is confusing and shit, but assuming you want to connect to machines behind Router 2 from Router 1's subnet, you need to connect to Router 2's IP with the right port and set up port forwarding in Router 2. Better option ofc is to not use DHCP on Router 2.
>>
>>56072024
Router 2 is connected to router 1. I want router 1's network to be able to talk to router 2's. They are separate networks entirely, not subnetted. I believe that I am missing a static route on router 1, as router 2 is able to access router 1's network just fine. I am wondering if there is a problem with my setup, or if perhaps the cheap net gear router doesn't do static routing properly.
>>
>>56071971
just add to the router 1 the route to reach 10.0.0.0/24 network through 192.168.1.33
>>
>>56071971 On router2 disable dhcp, set local ip to 192.168.1.2, default gateway/dns to 192.168.1.1 and re-plug a cable from wan port to lan.
With this configuration router2 will become a switch and you will get working bonjour/zeroconf.
>>
>>56071971
This seems like a lot of unnecessary work. What are you trying to accomplish?
>>
You'll need routes in both routers, period.
Set R2's gateway to 192.168.1.1 and a route in R1 10.0.0.0/24 to 192.168.1.33.

After that, the correct way to limit access between networks is using access lists. Deny 192.168.1.0 to 10.0.0.0/24 on the Cisco and you might want/need to enable ip inspect.
>>
>>56071971
You need to set up OSPF.
>>
File: blahblah.png (7KB, 390x533px)
blahblah.png
7KB, 390x533px
Run a trace route on a system on the 192.168.1.0/24 network with the target ip in the 10.0.0.0/24 network.

If Router 1 isn't sending traffic to Router 2 at all, then you need to configure a static route on Router 1 to Router 2 for the 10.0.0.0/24 network.

http://kb.netgear.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/24322/~/how-do-i-set-or-edit-static-routes-on-a-netgear-router%3F
>>
>>56072223
I did that and it doesn't work for some reason.
>>
>>56072543
Actually, You need to run a trace route on whatever subnet users are connecting to on Router 1 or if Router 1 has any diagnostic utils.
>>
>>56072287
This isn't what I am looking for. I am making a cisco home lab, and I want a "home" network and "lab" network with the ability for them to talk to each other. I need access to both networks from my PC as one is in the basement and one is upstairs.
>>
>>56072572
Gee set the router ip 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.1.2, disable dhcp on secondary router, and connect cable from lan router 1 to any lan ports on router 2 (not interner/wan ports). I'm using my secondary router as wireless access point, you can connect to first and secondary router or even samba wireless printing etc.
>>
>>56072417
A cisco home lab. I want to be able to access my regular home network, and the cisco network from the same computer. The lab stuff is in the basement, the home router is upstairs. Also, I am consoled into the cisco stuff from a server that is in basement that is connected to the cisco lab network, and I'd like to be able to access that remotely.
>>
>>56072543
I ran wireshark to try to figure out what it was doing, the netgear router is sending traffic to .33, but it doesn't appear to be going anywhere after that. I am wondering if it's somthing wrong with my Cisco configuration.
>>
>>56072622
Is the gateway set on the Cisco?
>>
>>56072636
Yes. It's set to 192.168.1.1
>>
>>56072622

What happens if you ping the 10.0.0.0/24 interface of your Cisco router?
>>
>>56072550

Does router 2 have a return route?
>>
>>56072650
What pings are failing, 192.168.1.x to 10.0.0.x, or pings between .1 and .33 too?

Post your Cisco's config.
>>
>>56072674
Pings from 192.168.0 to 10.0.0.0

The 10. network can ping everything.
>>
>>56072661
Well it can ping everything in the 192.168.0.0 network so I would assume so.
>>
>>56072661

Oh wait. I have another idea, assuming you're not just some newb who can't figure out routing tables.

I've read about this in textbooks, but I've never seen it IRL

There are times, where a router will NAT the traffic before it sends it out to another router in the same autonomous system. So even though you're communicating from your PC, the packets will have have a public source IP address, and of course Router 2 won't know what the fuck you're talking about, so it drops the traffic.

This would explain why R2 can talk to R1 and get return traffic but not the other way around
>>
>>56072701

I found it in my notes

To fix this you have to enable a feature called NVI.
>>
Here is the config: http://pastebin.com/5JpcPhHT
>>
IP forwarding needs to be enabled on both routers.
>>
>>56072753

Why even NAT on R2 at all?

I would go to router 1 and set a static route pointing to 10.0.0.0/24

Then I would turn off NAT on R2 and give the interface connecting R2 and R1 a 192 address

Then on R2 I would make a static route pointing to R1
>>
>>56072796
Yeah I might have to do that if I can't get it figured out. I just setup RIP and that didn't help at all.
>>
>>56072796
This is my static route on R1. It's a 100~ Netgear router so it's options are some what limited.
>>
>>56072844

Can home routers even use routing protocols, let alone old ones like RIP?

Activating RIP on one end but not the other doesn't lead to anything
>>
>>56072862

Why give the Fa 0/0 a dhcp address from R1? If it gets a new IP your static route on R1 is broken. I'd reserve an address for it on R1 and assign it to the interface on R2. Setup a static default route out pointing out of Fa 0/0 on R2 and if you're still having issues, disable NAT on R2 and try it again.
>>
>>56072870
Supposedly mine supports it but I am not sure how well.
>>
>>56072862
Can you ping 192.168.1.33 from within the 192.168.1.0 network?
>>
>>56071971
You cannot access internal resources from WAN side. Otherwise it would be pretty easy to hack computers inside private network using Internet.
>>
>>56072870
Yeah, some of them have RIP. It won't matter anyhow because the directly connected interface has a lower metric.
>>
>>56072899
It's just because I was being lazy. If I actually got it working I'd assign it a static address. I have static routes on both sides but it's not working.
>>
>>56072911
Yes.
>>
>>56072951
Then it's on the Cisco side. Have you looked into firewalls? It could be blocking incoming traffic from outside the base network.
>>
>>56072915
That's a good point. I guess in most scenarios you'd be using a point to point vpn or similar to connect the two networks.
>>
If you try a traceroute from the 192.168.1.0 side to the 10.0.0.0 side and it gets to 192.168.1.33 and after that starts timing out then it's a pretty good indication that the routes are okay but the Cisco router is dropping your incoming packets.
>>
What happens when you do this?

Router 2>enable
Router 2#ping

Protocol [ip]:
Target IP address: 10.0.0.1
Repeat count [5]: 10
Datagram size [100]:
Timeout in seconds [2]:
Extended commands [n]: y
Source address or interface: 192.168.1.1
>>
Op here it's 4:14 AM my time. I am going to bed. I appreciate all of you who tried to help. I'll keep tinkering with it tomorrow.
>>
File: werks.jpg (452KB, 1909x1002px)
werks.jpg
452KB, 1909x1002px
>>56072862

here's my settings, maybe op should switch between router 1 to router 2, router one is cisco and router 2 netgear and see if it works maybe netgear can't bridge it. I leave nat setting to auot/enable on router 2 and firewall still active on router 2.
>>
>>56071971
>>56073042
> Using proprietary shits
You have only yourself to blame OP. At home two of my routers are connected to each other using fucking wifi, and every port on each router is connected to a different fucking subnet. Some will allow to talk to each other, some will not, all of them sharing a same internet connection.
So do yourself a favor and install OpenWRT on everything that is flashable.
>>
>>56072977
On L3 routers you can set the IP address for any port, usually you shouldn't have to do anything beyond this to join up multiple networks if you want them just to mesh together, however if this router has a particular WAN port he has plugged into then I could see it by default dropping incoming packets.
>>
>>56073130
>OpenWRT
So you're using shitbox linksys (or similar) gear which can't route in hardware and you cant figure out a CLI so you need a point and click system?
>>
>>56073042
OP stop using NAT on the cisco and this wouldnt be a problem. You need to setup NAT rules on the Cisco if you want stuff on the Netgear side to talk to stuff on the cisco side, and most of the time there is no point at all to doing NAT at home behind a router which already does NAT
>>
>>56071971
Add static route on your cisco router, or setup gateway of last resort on cisco one pointing towards r1
>>
>>56071971
do you actually need one of them to be 10.0.0.0/24 and the other 192.168.1.0/24? why don't you just configure router2 to act like a network switch?
>>
File: data_sheet_c78-708665_0.jpg (18KB, 372x240px) Image search: [Google]
data_sheet_c78-708665_0.jpg
18KB, 372x240px
>>56074354
>A layer 3 device
>operating as a layer 2 device
wut? He said he is doing NAT, and the only Cisco Catalyst switches which accept fast ethernet and support NAT are the 6500s which I doubt he has at home.
>>
>>56071971
Make the second router an access point. Local DNS address will be served by router 1.
>>
>>56075075
You dont know what any of those terms are do you?
>>
>>56071971
Factory reset them both and then plug an ethernet cable between them. The routers will work out the rest.
>>
Just turn all the routers to a switch
Disable dhcp and such
>>
>>56075057
I'm not that well versed in network technology, maybe I used the wrong term, I meant just disabling nat and dhcp on router 2 and only use the LAN ports on it
>>
>>56071984
RIP? My Netgear supports it.
Thread posts: 59
Thread images: 5


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]

I'm aware that Imgur.com will stop allowing adult images since 15th of May. I'm taking actions to backup as much data as possible.
Read more on this topic here - https://archived.moe/talk/thread/1694/


If you need a post removed click on it's [Report] button and follow the instruction.
DMCA Content Takedown via dmca.com
All images are hosted on imgur.com.
If you like this website please support us by donating with Bitcoins at 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties.
Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site.
This means that RandomArchive shows their content, archived.
If you need information for a Poster - contact them.