Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Cisco > Wireless Network Design

Reply
Thread Tools

Wireless Network Design

 
 
Bob Simon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-08-2008
I set up a wireless router in my upstairs home office (providing good
coverage for the second floor) and a second one downstairs in the
living room where signal strength is too low to be useful. There are
probably lots of different ways to do this but I would like feedback
on the theoretical as well as practical pros and cons of two
approaches:

1) One wired network (192.168.0.0) connecting the LAN port of the DSL
modem and the WAN ports of both wireless routers. Each router would
give out their own small pool of DHCP addresses, 192.168.1.0 upstairs
and 192.168.2.0 downstairs.

2) The wireless router upstairs would be the only one with DHCP
enabled and would connect to the one downstairs via the LAN-side
switch. In effect, this turns the downstairs router into a bridged
access point.

Are both approaches equally valid?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Stephen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-08-2008
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:07:47 -0500, Bob Simon <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I set up a wireless router in my upstairs home office (providing good
>coverage for the second floor) and a second one downstairs in the
>living room where signal strength is too low to be useful. There are
>probably lots of different ways to do this but I would like feedback
>on the theoretical as well as practical pros and cons of two
>approaches:
>
>1) One wired network (192.168.0.0) connecting the LAN port of the DSL
>modem and the WAN ports of both wireless routers. Each router would
>give out their own small pool of DHCP addresses, 192.168.1.0 upstairs
>and 192.168.2.0 downstairs.


this one stops you sharing files / printers etc between devices
attached to the 2 routers.

It is difficult to connect if your modem only has 1 Ethernet port.

it also breaks down completely if the provider only allows you a
single WAN IP address at a time....
>
>2) The wireless router upstairs would be the only one with DHCP
>enabled and would connect to the one downstairs via the LAN-side
>switch. In effect, this turns the downstairs router into a bridged
>access point.


this is more common (mainly because SOHO routers are cheaper than
dedicated access points).
You are using the LAN only box as a switch / access point only.
Some boxes have "AP only" mode this as a setup option.

>
>Are both approaches equally valid?


no - 1st one doesnt work if you only get 1 address.
--
Regards

http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bob Simon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2008
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:20:05 GMT, Stephen <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:07:47 -0500, Bob Simon <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>I set up a wireless router in my upstairs home office (providing good
>>coverage for the second floor) and a second one downstairs in the
>>living room where signal strength is too low to be useful. There are
>>probably lots of different ways to do this but I would like feedback
>>on the theoretical as well as practical pros and cons of two
>>approaches:
>>
>>1) One wired network (192.168.0.0) connecting the LAN port of the DSL
>>modem and the WAN ports of both wireless routers. Each router would
>>give out their own small pool of DHCP addresses, 192.168.1.0 upstairs
>>and 192.168.2.0 downstairs.

>
>this one stops you sharing files / printers etc between devices
>attached to the 2 routers.
>
>It is difficult to connect if your modem only has 1 Ethernet port.
>
>it also breaks down completely if the provider only allows you a
>single WAN IP address at a time....
>>
>>2) The wireless router upstairs would be the only one with DHCP
>>enabled and would connect to the one downstairs via the LAN-side
>>switch. In effect, this turns the downstairs router into a bridged
>>access point.

>
>this is more common (mainly because SOHO routers are cheaper than
>dedicated access points).
>You are using the LAN only box as a switch / access point only.
>Some boxes have "AP only" mode this as a setup option.
>
>>
>>Are both approaches equally valid?

>
>no - 1st one doesnt work if you only get 1 address.


I hooked up my two routers as per the second design and everything
works except roaming. I set the SSID and WEP keys the same and put
one router on channel 1 and the other on channel 6. When I go from my
upstairs office to the living room, the signal strength meter displays
zero or one bar but XP does not switch to the downstairs AP unless I
disable or disconnect the wireless connection. When I re-enable or
re-connect, I get five bars. Can this switchover be made to occur
automatically?

Also, I don't understand your comment that my first design won't work
because
>it also breaks down completely if the provider only allows you a
>single WAN IP address at a time....


My ISP provides a single public static IP address to the WAN port of
the DSL modem. But since this modem does NAT, it should be able to
handle mulitple inside hosts with private addresses up to the limit of
its ability to handle translations without excessive delay. Right?

--
Bob Simon
Please remove Xs from domain for direct replies.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Merv
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2008

>
> My ISP provides a single public static IP address to the WAN port of
> the DSL modem. But since this modem does NAT, it should be able to
> handle mulitple inside hosts with private addresses up to the limit of
> its ability to handle translations without excessive delay. Right?


Are you able to configure the DSL modem ?

If for example the DSL modem is setup to only NAT 192.168.0..0/24 then
you might have an issue ....

If you can control its configuration so that it will NAT
192.168.0.0/16, then you should be okay

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bob Simon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2008

On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 14:12:46 -0700 (PDT), Merv <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>> My ISP provides a single public static IP address to the WAN port of
>> the DSL modem. But since this modem does NAT, it should be able to
>> handle mulitple inside hosts with private addresses up to the limit of
>> its ability to handle translations without excessive delay. Right?

>
>Are you able to configure the DSL modem ?
>
>If for example the DSL modem is setup to only NAT 192.168.0..0/24 then
>you might have an issue ....
>
>If you can control its configuration so that it will NAT
>192.168.0.0/16, then you should be okay


The modem is a Motorola/Netopia 2210-02. Motorola tech support said
it's been customized per ATT specs with some functionality stripped
out. I am able to configure it via the web interface plus via telnet,
which offers additional configuration granularity. There is no manual
available but the CLI offers help screens and command options. I only
see four NAT features:
mode -- NAT default server mode
mode (off) [ off | default-server | ip-passthrough ]
address -- NAT default server IP address
dhcp-enable -- NAT IP Passthrough DHCP enabled
host-hardware-address -- NAT IP Passthrough host hardware

Why would it be useful for the modem to be able to NAT for more than
one class c subnet? Wouldn't the following scenario work?

DSL Modem
WAN: public static
LAN: 192.168.0.1/24
Def GW: WAN port
NAT for 192.168.0.0/24 to public static IP

Wireless Rtr 1
WAN: 192.168.0.2/24
LAN: 192.168.1.1/24
Def GW: 192.168.0.1
NAT for 192.168.1.0/24 to 192.168.0.2

Wireless Rtr 2
WAN: 192.168.0.3/24
LAN: 192.168.2.1/24
Def GW: 192.168.0.1
NAT for 192.168.2.0/24 to 192.168.0.3

Both routers would provide DHCP addresses for their respective
wireless clients. I presume roaming would not work because the client
would need to obtain a new IP address. But roaming doesn't work now
anyway as I mentioned yesterday.

If I'm missing some key point about network connectivity that requires
NAT for 192.168.0.0/16, I sure wish that someone would enlighten me.
Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stephen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2008
On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:27:53 -0500, Bob Simon <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:20:05 GMT, Stephen <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:07:47 -0500, Bob Simon <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I set up a wireless router in my upstairs home office (providing good
>>>coverage for the second floor) and a second one downstairs in the
>>>living room where signal strength is too low to be useful. There are
>>>probably lots of different ways to do this but I would like feedback
>>>on the theoretical as well as practical pros and cons of two
>>>approaches:
>>>
>>>1) One wired network (192.168.0.0) connecting the LAN port of the DSL
>>>modem and the WAN ports of both wireless routers. Each router would
>>>give out their own small pool of DHCP addresses, 192.168.1.0 upstairs
>>>and 192.168.2.0 downstairs.

>>
>>this one stops you sharing files / printers etc between devices
>>attached to the 2 routers.
>>
>>It is difficult to connect if your modem only has 1 Ethernet port.
>>
>>it also breaks down completely if the provider only allows you a
>>single WAN IP address at a time....
>>>
>>>2) The wireless router upstairs would be the only one with DHCP
>>>enabled and would connect to the one downstairs via the LAN-side
>>>switch. In effect, this turns the downstairs router into a bridged
>>>access point.

>>
>>this is more common (mainly because SOHO routers are cheaper than
>>dedicated access points).
>>You are using the LAN only box as a switch / access point only.
>>Some boxes have "AP only" mode this as a setup option.
>>
>>>
>>>Are both approaches equally valid?

>>
>>no - 1st one doesnt work if you only get 1 address.

>
>I hooked up my two routers as per the second design and everything
>works except roaming. I set the SSID and WEP keys the same and put
>one router on channel 1 and the other on channel 6. When I go from my
>upstairs office to the living room, the signal strength meter displays
>zero or one bar but XP does not switch to the downstairs AP unless I
>disable or disconnect the wireless connection. When I re-enable or
>re-connect, I get five bars. Can this switchover be made to occur
>automatically?
>
>Also, I don't understand your comment that my first design won't work
>because
>>it also breaks down completely if the provider only allows you a
>>single WAN IP address at a time....

>
>My ISP provides a single public static IP address to the WAN port of
>the DSL modem. But since this modem does NAT, it should be able to
>handle mulitple inside hosts with private addresses up to the limit of
>its ability to handle translations without excessive delay. Right?


OK - sounds like your "modem" is actually acting as a router.

However - sharing between the 2 routers with default config will not
work (since you cannot initiate a TCP connection on 1 and deliver to
the other if you have NAT on each).

Try turning off NAT & DHCP on both of your routers and let the modem
(router) do it.
--
Regards

(E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bob Simon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2008
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:29:24 GMT, Stephen <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:27:53 -0500, Bob Simon <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:20:05 GMT, Stephen <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>wrote:
>>
>>Also, I don't understand your comment that my first design won't work
>>because
>>>it also breaks down completely if the provider only allows you a
>>>single WAN IP address at a time....

>>
>>My ISP provides a single public static IP address to the WAN port of
>>the DSL modem. But since this modem does NAT, it should be able to
>>handle mulitple inside hosts with private addresses up to the limit of
>>its ability to handle translations without excessive delay. Right?

>
>OK - sounds like your "modem" is actually acting as a router.
>
>However - sharing between the 2 routers with default config will not
>work (since you cannot initiate a TCP connection on 1 and deliver to
>the other if you have NAT on each).
>


I don't intend to use the default config. Other than that, do you see
a reason that the first design will not work?

>Try turning off NAT & DHCP on both of your routers and let the modem
>(router) do it.


Is there some reason that a wireless router and the DSL modem cannot
both do NAT?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Merv
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2008
On Aug 10, 3:34 pm, Bob Simon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:29:24 GMT, Stephen <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:27:53 -0500, Bob Simon <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >wrote:

>
> >>On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:20:05 GMT, Stephen <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >>wrote:

>
> >>Also, I don't understand your comment that my first design won't work
> >>because
> >>>it also breaks down completely if the provider only allows you a
> >>>single WAN IP address at a time....

>
> >>My ISP provides a single public static IP address to the WAN port of
> >>the DSL modem. But since this modem does NAT, it should be able to
> >>handle mulitple inside hosts with private addresses up to the limit of
> >>its ability to handle translations without excessive delay. Right?

>
> >OK - sounds like your "modem" is actually acting as a router.

>
> >However - sharing between the 2 routers with default config will not
> >work (since you cannot initiate a TCP connection on 1 and deliver to
> >the other if you have NAT on each).

>
> I don't intend to use the default config. Other than that, do you see
> a reason that the first design will not work?
>
> >Try turning off NAT & DHCP on both of your routers and let the modem
> >(router) do it.

>
> Is there some reason that a wireless router and the DSL modem cannot
> both do NAT?


Double NAT'ing is generally considered troublesome but you can give it
a try of course

You should also determine if the wireless routers can be configured as
bridges and just use 192.168.0.0/24 for the entire setup
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stephen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2008
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:16:19 -0500, Bob Simon <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 14:12:46 -0700 (PDT), Merv <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>> My ISP provides a single public static IP address to the WAN port of
>>> the DSL modem. But since this modem does NAT, it should be able to
>>> handle mulitple inside hosts with private addresses up to the limit of
>>> its ability to handle translations without excessive delay. Right?

>>
>>Are you able to configure the DSL modem ?
>>
>>If for example the DSL modem is setup to only NAT 192.168.0..0/24 then
>>you might have an issue ....
>>
>>If you can control its configuration so that it will NAT
>>192.168.0.0/16, then you should be okay

>
>The modem is a Motorola/Netopia 2210-02. Motorola tech support said
>it's been customized per ATT specs with some functionality stripped
>out. I am able to configure it via the web interface plus via telnet,
>which offers additional configuration granularity. There is no manual
>available but the CLI offers help screens and command options. I only
>see four NAT features:
> mode -- NAT default server mode
> mode (off) [ off | default-server | ip-passthrough ]
> address -- NAT default server IP address
> dhcp-enable -- NAT IP Passthrough DHCP enabled
> host-hardware-address -- NAT IP Passthrough host hardware
>
>Why would it be useful for the modem to be able to NAT for more than
>one class c subnet? Wouldn't the following scenario work?
>
>DSL Modem
>WAN: public static
>LAN: 192.168.0.1/24
>Def GW: WAN port
>NAT for 192.168.0.0/24 to public static IP
>
>Wireless Rtr 1
>WAN: 192.168.0.2/24
>LAN: 192.168.1.1/24
>Def GW: 192.168.0.1
>NAT for 192.168.1.0/24 to 192.168.0.2


if you can disable NAT, then you should be able to get the clients on
W rtr 1 and w rtr 2 to talk directly.
>
>Wireless Rtr 2
>WAN: 192.168.0.3/24
>LAN: 192.168.2.1/24
>Def GW: 192.168.0.1
>NAT for 192.168.2.0/24 to 192.168.0.3
>
>Both routers would provide DHCP addresses for their respective
>wireless clients. I presume roaming would not work because the client
>would need to obtain a new IP address. But roaming doesn't work now
>anyway as I mentioned yesterday.


OK. if rather than NAT these can work as real routers then you may be
able to make it work - but the modem would need to handle static
routes, RIP etc, since your LAN would comprise 3 subnets.

A better way (especially with only a few devices) is to structure it
as a single subnet.

But if the wireless routers just use no NAT, no routing and you have
DHCP for all devices from the "DSL modem" then a device should be able
to move across the 2 wireless links using the same IP address.

So if the address stays the same, you should be able to get roaming to
work.

hook a LAN port on each router to the modem.
Disable NAT / DHCP on each router (or run them in "AP mode" if they
support it).
Do not connect to the WAN ports on the routers.
>
>If I'm missing some key point about network connectivity that requires
>NAT for 192.168.0.0/16, I sure wish that someone would enlighten me.
>Bob


if you remove 1 layer of NAT you end up witha system with a single
"LAN" and IP subnet, spread across the modem + 2 routers.

once you have that the connectivity between your devices is
unrestricted, and you have a chance to sort out roaming.

Note - if you want roaming to work, you need:

1. the same SSID / key phrase / wireless encryption mode on both
wireless routers.
2. devices where the wireless driver understand roaming (and
implements it correctly) - lots of flakey / broken drivers out
there...
3. A LAN that handles the logical move of a MAC address - this is
functions in the bridging within each wireless router + in the modem.

good luck
--
Regards

(E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Public Wireless Network together with Private Wireless Network PL Computer Security 1 11-15-2007 03:54 PM
Wireless Network Wizard and scripting updates to wireless network. Jordan Wireless Networking 1 11-03-2007 02:16 PM
Deleting a "Wireless network" created with the wireless network wi =?Utf-8?B?SmFtZXM=?= Wireless Networking 2 02-03-2006 11:18 AM
Wireless Bridge VS Wireless Access Point for DVR connection to wireless network Mark Wireless Networking 0 12-28-2005 09:21 PM
Wireless Network Help with a mixed wired and wireless network Rupert NZ Computing 1 05-09-2004 08:52 PM



Advertisments