sETUP rOUTER

setup
Hi AllI would appreciate a little help with a router set up.First I would like to keep this as simple as possible with the intent of adding complexity after I make the most basic items function as required first.This is a standard Netgear wireless router with 1 input RJ45 port and 4 output RJ45 ports and 1 wireless output port.I would like to have dynastic [input] connection capability for the connection to the ISP.I would like to use static [output] connections to the computers with ports_____________________________________________Proposed Static Router SettingsRoute Name Designated IP 192.168.10.XIP Submask 255.255.255.0IP Gateway 192.168.1.Xwhere X = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for RJ45 connection 1, 2, 3, & 4 and 5 for the wireless connection._____________________________________________LAN IP Set-UpIP Address 191.168.1.1 RouterIP Subnet 255.255.255.0Set Use Router DHCP to onStarting IP Address 192.168.20.1Ending IP Address 192.168.20.51I would appreciate knowing if these setting look OK or not.Are there any other settings I have to make for the simplest of systems.ThanksFrank-To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" inthe body of a message to majordomo [at] vger.kernel.orgMore majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlPlease read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
Frank Roberts - SOTL [ Do, 10 März 2005 01:48 ] [ ID #685465 ]
Re: Router setup
At 07:48 PM 3/9/2005 -0500, SOTL wrote:>Hi All>>I would appreciate a little help with a router set up.>>First I would like to keep this as simple as possible with the intent of>adding complexity after I make the most basic items function as required>first.>>This is a standard Netgear wireless router with 1 input RJ45 port and 4 >output>RJ45 ports and 1 wireless output port.>>I would like to have dynastic [input] connection capability for the >connection>to the ISP.I assume you mean dynamic, not dynastic. In any case, what you have on that end is pretty muchdictated by your ISP, not your own preferences.>I would like to use static [output] connections to the computers with ports>_____________________________________________>Proposed Static Router Settings>>Route Name >Designated IP 192.168.10.X>IP Submask 255.255.255.0>IP Gateway 192.168.1.X>>where X = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for RJ45 connection 1, 2, 3, & 4 and 5 for the>wireless connection.If the router can support host-level (single address) static routes in its routing table (not really a Linux question unless Netgear routers have started running embedded Linux), then this is mostly fine, although a bit cumbersome. I don't know what "Route Name" means, though, unless it is something specific to the Netgear UI (still not a Linux question).The one fundamental problem with your proposed approach is that you can use any given address only once, so you cannot use 192.168.10.1-5 on the 802.3 connection and then use the same 192.168.10.1-5 addresses on the 802.11 connection.On typical wireless routers, the 802.3 and 802.11 interfaces are bridged, so they support the same network in the routing table (usually 192.168.1.0/24).A less fundamental problem with this approach is that it is unnecessarily complex. See the alternative I outline in the next section.>_____________________________________________>LAN IP Set-Up>>IP Address 191.168.1.1>IP Subnet 255.255.255.0>Set Use Router DHCP to on>Starting IP Address 192.168.20.1>Ending IP Address 192.168.20.51This creates the need ofr ugly routing tables. If the router's own address is 192.168.1.1 and its netmask (what you call "IP Subnet") is 255.255.255.0, then it has no route to any 192.168.20.x host. You'll need more static routes in the router -AND- static routes on each host to the router. This is all very icky.And really, both parts of this approach are really doing it the hard way, unless you have some compelling reason for not using the standard approach with home routers, something like:Router IP Address: 192.168.1.1 or 192.168.1.254Netmask: 255.255.255.0 (AKA /4)Static Addresses: 192.168.1.2-63DHCP Addresses: 192.168.1.64-253Plus you shoudl implement whatever security your wireless interface offers (the crappy WEP for 802.11b or the better encryption, called In think WPA, for 802.11g ... I don't know which version of wireless your "standard" Netgear wireless offers.>I would appreciate knowing if these setting look OK or not.>>Are there any other settings I have to make for the simplest of systems.Your approach is far from "simplest". The standard approach that I sketch out above is far simpler.