Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bs27975]

I have an internal network, say 192.168.16.0/24, connected to my main network, say, 192.168.1.0/24.

I need to add a route from the DIR-857 at 1.1 to 1.16 for the .16. network.

The advanced / routing page does not permit me to change the interface from wan to lan [so packets from the internal router CAN GET BACK!]

How to effect this route?

P.S. In case it isn't obvious ... the routers are connected via LAN (switch ports). i.e. The secondary router is not connected to the primary via wan port. Nor will it ever be.
- if the answer is DIR-857 can't do it, just say so.

[FurryNutz]

Link>Welcome!

Try reviewing this to see if this will work for you:
How to extend network without AP Mode using a Router

[bs27975]

Link>Welcome!

Try reviewing this to see if this will work for you:
How to extend network without AP Mode using a Router

Before having someone chase their tail on an irrelevant link, please consider whether that link does indeed answer the given question, and constraints specified, within.

- if you still feel the link explicitly applies to the given question, when posting such links it would be useful to specifically outline the section you feel applicable.

Simple question - how to add an internal (LAN) static route on the DIR-857. [Since the WAN port is not connected on the internal network, NAT et al, does not apply.]

[FurryNutz]

The configuration your asking about is not supported on this router i this mode.
Your only solutions would be to give the 1st link a try or use this router as an AP:
 Turning a router into an AP.

Good Luck.

[nestolea]

Hello bs27975,

I am not sure whether I understood your network topology correctly...

You are connecting two different networks at the LAN side of the router? Why?
This would only make sense to me if one of the two nets is connected to the WAN side.
All clients usually can contact either a) other clients on the same subnet or b) any other client via the default route. If there's a second subnet, how could the clients know to contact them? Supposed that the default route is the way into the Internet...

OTOH, the document Furry posted does not fit to the setup you are describing, as far as I understood.
But it describes a solution how to connect two different networks with you router - including the WAN port.
Further, with the configuration described, your problem might be resolvable. E.g. the IP addresss could be configured into the router DMZ.

[FurryNutz]

Thanks for posting Nestolea. I presumed his configuration might not be correct.

Hello bs27975,

I am not sure whether I understood your network topology correctly...

You are connecting two different networks at the LAN side of the router? Why?
This would only make sense to me if one of the two nets is connected to the WAN side.
All clients usually can contact either a) other clients on the same subnet or b) any other client via the default route. If there's a second subnet, how could the clients know to contact them? Supposed that the default route is the way into the Internet...

OTOH, the document Furry posted does not fit to the setup you are describing, as far as I understood.
But it describes a solution how to connect two different networks with you router - including the WAN port.
Further, with the configuration described, your problem might be resolvable. E.g. the IP addresss could be configured into the router DMZ.

[bs27975]

In the nicest possible way ...

Aside from it being a very simple question which has already received a very simple and complete answer - it can't do that, ...

Hello bs27975,

I am not sure whether I understood your network topology correctly...

You don't need to to answer what was a simple question.

You are connecting two different networks at the LAN side of the router? Why?

Because it suits me to do so, and is appropriate.

This would only make sense to me if one of the two nets is connected to the WAN side.

Sorry, I can't speak to what makes sense to you.

Here's an easy explanation - not my setup, but generic to the reason for the question.

Suppose you have a house with a single internet provider.

Now suppose each floor has a different tenant, so you put a router in front of each floor, the WAN link of each goes to the LAN link of the router connected to the provider, who's wan link goes to that provider. Simple, easy, and prudent security measure. No tenant can see inside another tenant's network.

Now behind one of those floors is an IP printer.

So, for simplicity's sake, assume 192.168.0/16 is the house. .0/24 is the first hop inside the house. .1,.2,.3/24 are the 3 floors, connected at .0.1,.2,.3. The printer is at .3.100.

How does someone behind .1.0/24 get to the printer?

route 192.168.3.0/24 192.168.1.3

Problem solved.

Except ... the router won't take a static route.

[bs27975]

Thanks for posting Nestolea. I presumed his configuration might not be correct.

<sigh>

Sad that you presume that, as your presumption is entirely incorrect.

Absolutely nothing wrong with the setup, and entirely appropriate for my use case.

You can daisy chain any number of routers behind each other, e.g. A - B - C - D - E ...

Each router can have a static path deeper into the chain.

route E net via B router
route E net via C router

etc.

Standard networking. Built into the distros and chipsets.

Just not exposed via D-Link.

[FurryNutz]

<sigh> I know that. Statement was meant about your configuration can't be met with 857. I should have been more specific. 

"Standards" may or may not be exposed to D-Link however I presume that each Mfr chooses to develop and design products with or with out features for whom they feel the market is best for and each niche, Home, Business and Enterprise. It's up to them to design all the various products for those needs I presume. Home routers on some level, just may not have those needs for that average user. Users have to get what they need and research and find what works for there needs, just not assume that all routers are the same and will meet all there needs. Would be a waste of features and functions to have at home when the average Joe wouldn't use them, all the time or if any. Just saying. For the more advanced users, they should really already know what they need, have the experience and do the research to find out what HW supports there needs and buy accordingly.

Good Luck in your endeavors. 

[bs27975]

D'OH. Guess I misread.

Absolutely. They expose, or not, what's already there, and market as they feel they need to.

Bites when the stuff is there but they don't expose it, unless you buy a more expensive model, which probably is the same guts but with a different gui exposure configuration.

Which is why I don't expect to buy another D-Link, given this experience. It's just silly.

For what I saw, NetGear is a little better, but only a little. The open sourced basis of their router(s?) is out there, but they then make it overly hard to get to / use.

For some reason TP-Link appears to have matured over the last years, and may be a further improvement upon NetGear.

Only talking about attitude here. Can't speak to product quality or anything - although, in the end, they all depend upon open source software and mass produced chipsets.

It does seem prudent these days to pop over to openwrt, dd-wrt, et al, these days. Even if not intending to use, there does seem to be a sense of standards / chipsets used, hardware capabilities, ease of use, popularity, that sort of thing. If you can get a sense of the hardware you need for your particular use case, perhaps one can discover a number of competing models that may satisfy, and come up with a short list of products to consider, from various vendors.

[FurryNutz]

I'm sure you'll find something that suites your needs.

Good Luck.

[nestolea]

Aside from it being a very simple question which has already received a very simple and complete answer - it can't do that, ...

It might be not that simple question, as one could deduce from the discussion here...
Yes, it can't be done the conventional way. But I personally tend to stubbornly try all possibilities that come to mind before I give up.   

Now suppose each floor has a different tenant, so you put a router in front of each floor, the WAN link of each goes to the LAN link of the router connected to the provider, who's wan link goes to that provider. Simple, easy, and prudent security measure. No tenant can see inside another tenant's network.

Now, that's a classical router cascade! Do you speak German? I discussed this topic with a writer of a big German computer magazine and he wrote a nice article about it at http://www.heise.de/netze/artikel/Router-Kaskaden-1825801.html.

This absolutely makes sense to me, I use it myself. But it's the opposite of what you described at the beginning of this thread.

route 192.168.3.0/24 192.168.1.3

I agree, this really would be the easiest solution. If only the router would support it!

I am struggling with exactly the same problem right now: Want to enable access to a network printer located in a subnet. Currently I'm fiddling with the Virtual server feature. I successfully implemented this with ssh. But for some strange reason I don't get it to work with ipp. Any ideas?

Bites when the stuff is there but they don't expose it, unless you buy a more expensive model, which probably is the same guts but with a different gui exposure configuration.

Yes, it's a PITA when the device is capable of doing nice things but only artificially restricted by the software.

If you can get a sense of the hardware you need for your particular use case, perhaps one can discover a number of competing models that may satisfy, and come up with a short list of products to consider, from various vendors.

Unfortunately, this is the hard part...