Can't access access point's setup page

Discussion in 'Home Networking' started by str0be, Mar 12, 2006.

  1. str0be

    str0be Guest


    I'm in the Netherlands, but am usually a UK resident, so I thought I'd
    better post here :)

    My landlord's modem-router:

    Product Name = SpeedTouch 546
    Vendor Name = THOMSON
    Software Version =

    My landlord's wireless access point is a Linksys WAP11 v2.8.

    In my landlord's office, the ADSL connection (with connects
    to the speedtouch modem-router. This has two LAN connections: one to
    the landlord's computer, and one to the wireless access point. My PC
    is connected wirelessly through this.

    I can access the modem-router's setup page just by browsing to I don't know how to get to the access point's setup page.
    The manual says that the IP address (default; I haven't changed it) is, but I don't even get a response when I ping it.

    When I look in the modem-router's page on DHCP server leases, I see my
    own MAC address given, and what is presumably my landlord's,
    but I don't see one for the Access Point.

    I think this may be a problem with netmasks.

    If someone can suggest a course of action, thanks -- I need to secure
    the network as right now it is wide open for anyone to use!
    str0be, Mar 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. str0be

    Jeff Gaines Guest

    You won't be able to access anything on a 192.168.n.n range from a
    10.0.n.n IP address. You could temporarily change the IP address on
    your PC to 192.168.1.n and then if the WAP address is still at its
    default you should be able to see it. You will then need to change its
    IP address to 10.0.0.n and change you PC's IP address back to 10.0.0.n
    - be careful of clashes though - can the WAP uses DHCP to pick up an
    address? If not you'll need to give it a fixed address outside the
    range allocated by the DHCP server.

    It's a lot easier to do the admin with a wired connection, takes 1
    possible problem out of the loop.
    Jeff Gaines, Mar 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. str0be

    Killa Guest

    You would if you used an OS with better networking support than
    Windows - you just add a route to the subnet to NIC without a
    Killa, Mar 12, 2006
  4. str0be

    John Steele Guest

    You can add up to 4 separate IP addresses to a NIC with Windows XP
    John Steele, Mar 12, 2006
  5. str0be

    str0be Guest

    OK, I told the modem-router to give IPs starting at in
    future, so that I have some free for static usage. Then I changed my
    IP address of my PC temporarily, logged into the AP's setup page and
    told it to get its IP by DHCP in future. I regret this.

    After changing my PC back to using DHCP-received settings, I am unable
    to log into the AP, now residing at I know the IP since I
    can see it in the modem-router's DHCP Server leases page. But unlike
    my lease, which has a state: used, the AP has state:free
    The DHCP server lease state:
    Free (in case of statically added DHCP leases)
    Indicating an unused DHCP server leases. No DHCP request from this
    particular Client ID has been received by the DHCP server (yet).
    Indicating assigned DHCP leases. A DHCP lease has been assigned to this
    Client ID in the past (actually (Pool lease time)-TTL seconds ago).

    Obviously I should have given it a static IP of or something.
    But where to go from here?
    str0be, Mar 12, 2006
  6. str0be

    Killa Guest

    But can you add routes without a gateway which don't match the subnet
    configured for the NIC ? There is no reason why you shouldn't be able
    to since the network stack should just use ARP for any such addresses
    and ARP doesn't care about IP subnets.

    FWIW, I just wondered how many IP addresses I could assigned to the
    same NIC on my main router (which isn't Windows, of course). I got
    fed up at 29 and stopped.
    Killa, Mar 12, 2006
  7. str0be

    Clint Sharp Guest

    So, 'route add' from the command prompt on a windows box doesn't work
    then? Maybe it's just that you need a better knowledge of Windows to
    hide your prejudices?
    Clint Sharp, Mar 12, 2006
  8. str0be

    Jeff Gaines Guest

    You 'ought' to be able to see anything in the 10.0.0.n range, are you
    using a netmask of

    You can probably set the AP IP address back to its default by
    pressing/holding a button and start again. I agree it's often better to
    have a fixed address for the router and AP, takes some variables out of
    the equation.
    Jeff Gaines, Mar 12, 2006
  9. str0be

    Killa Guest

    Well when I try it on my XP box I get:

    The route addition failed: The specified mask parameter is invalid.
    (Destination & Mask) != Destination.

    There is not reason why the Destination & Mask should equal the
    Desintation, but M$ seem to think it should.

    I think you have missed the point, but I may be wrong. If you do
    grasp the point, then please let me know how you configure a NIC on
    Windows to have, say, a 192.168.1.x/24 address and then use the same
    interface to access, say, 10.0.0.x/24 addresses without going via a
    router and without assigning a 10.0.0.x address to the NIC on the
    Windows box. There is no reason why you should not be able to do
    this, my *nix boxes all can, my ADSL router can, but I've never been
    able to get a Windows box to do it - so if I'm missing something,
    please let me know, it would be useful.
    Killa, Mar 12, 2006
  10. Killa wrote in
    Wouldn't it be simpler just to set all the equipment on the same network to
    the same subnet, as Jeff suggested.

    Probably a good idea to give the AP a static address such as if the
    router is and to turn off its DHCP so the router's DHCP assigns
    addresses for both the wired and wireless LAN. That way any equipment that
    is set to get its addresses over DHCP can access any other equipment n the
    LAN without any routes needing to be set.
    Martin Underwood, Mar 12, 2006
  11. str0be

    John Steele Guest

    You need to manually set the IP address rather than use DHCP before you can
    set multiple IP addresses in a NIC

    Go to IP Properties. Unset DHCP and give it a valid IP/subnet

    Go to Advanced and use the Add button. this brings up a dialog box to add
    IP/subnets. It works I have used it.

    Note I am using XP Pro
    John Steele, Mar 12, 2006
  12. str0be

    Simon Dobson Guest

    Yes, it is possible, using the "route add" command as Administrator,
    although the syntax is slightly different to what you may be used to on
    Simon Dobson, Mar 13, 2006
  13. str0be

    str0be Guest

    Yup, done that now, cheers. I had to factory-reset the AP so I could
    access it again, then set the AP's address to, since the
    modem-router is

    Now I've hidden the SSID, restricted access to my MAC only and enabled
    128-bit WEP. Yeah, I know WEP isn't great, but it's all the the AP has!
    str0be, Mar 13, 2006
  14. str0be

    Killa Guest

    Nope, still can't add a route for a host on the same physical LAN segment but
    on a different IP subnet so that I can talk to it directly. To make it
    clearer, on any of my *nix boxes and my ADSL router I can do the equivalent of

    # ifconfig br0
    br0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0D:61:48:DA:19
    inet addr: Bcast: Mask:
    RX packets:219843 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
    TX packets:278715 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
    collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
    RX bytes:62947120 (60.0 Mb) TX bytes:287688947 (274.3 Mb)

    # route add br0

    And assuming that knows that is on the same physical LAN
    segment, then can quite happily talk to without the use
    of a router/gateway.

    There are several reasons why this is useful (e.g. being able replace a router
    with a RJ45 coupler when things go wrong, spoof external IP addresses on the
    Internal LAN to facilitate routing non-NATable protocols through NAT routers,

    Now try it on Windows. If there is a way to do it is certainly isn't through a
    documented feature of the route command.
    Killa, Mar 13, 2006
  15. str0be

    Clint Sharp Guest

    There is a way and it is documented. Maybe you just need to read the
    documents properly? Try dropping those blinkers, it might help.
    Clint Sharp, Mar 14, 2006
  16. str0be

    Killa Guest

    Perhaps I'd be convinced had you provided a hint as to where this
    feature is documented - it is certainly not within the route command
    help. If my view of Windows is 'blinkered' then it is because of
    experience - there are plenty of things that Windows can't (or won't
    let you) do 'out-of-the-box' (if at all) that are standard features
    of all my non-Windows systems.
    Killa, Mar 14, 2006
  17. str0be

    Clint Sharp Guest

    Well, if you read the docs on the route command then you'll find the
    reason why your example doesn't work. Hint, are you routing between
    subnets or IP addresses?
    Actually it is but it's not explicit. I hate to make a comment like this
    but, if you understand network/host address in an IP address then it's
    pretty obvious.

    Your example would work with;

    route add

    Because you're adding an explicit route between IP addresses you don't
    need the subnet mask, if you were setting a route between your host and
    a full subnet ( for example) then you do need the mask as you
    have to tell TCP/IP how to determine the network/host address. In this

    route add mask

    would be needed.
    I usually find that people who claim something is broken haven't read
    or understood the instructions properly. Either that or they have
    riveted their blinkers onto their heads and refuse to accept something
    works because it doesn't work the way they think it should/the way it
    does on a different box.
    Such as?

    To be honest, I hate OS evangelists, especially the Mac ones. I have to
    run the gauntlet of many operating systems as part of my job (VMS,
    True64, DOS, CPM, Windows, *nix/nux et al.) and I fully accept that
    Windows is less than desirable in some of it's habits and operations but
    then so are many of the other operating systems out there. Every
    operating system has it's advantages and disadvantages, some more than
    FYI, one of my Alpha boxes can run NT but it doesn't, the other runs
    Redhat, only one of the boxes runs well, guess which....

    I'm having a particularly bad month so far so I may have been a little
    unpleasant to you, for which I apologise.
    Clint Sharp, Mar 14, 2006
  18. str0be

    Killa Guest

    Nope - that sets a route to via the gateway (router) at In my case and are on the same
    physical LAN segment, and so no router is required (or wouldn't be if
    Windows would let me tell it that it could use ARP to resolve the MAC
    address for
    Hmm ... and I don't think you quite got the gist of what I was saying.
    I use Windows - who doesn't? - and I'd be the first to admit that it
    is fine for a lot of things - and within Cygwin it makes a great
    X-server ;-) But Windows is a PITA when you want to do anything
    that some might consider to be a little unusual.
    Traffic shaping based on source IP address, MAC address and/or protocol and/or
    TCP/UDP port number. When a NNTP, FTP or P2P download can easily max-out your
    ADSL connection, being able to configure your system to give priority to
    certain types of traffic is a necessity otherwise your favourite Internet radio
    station keeps dropping out ;-( Applications which permit limits to be set on
    bandwidth usage are impractical because you want your FTP download to max out
    the link when it can, but to fall back when something more important is
    running. OK, so some routers (including mine) can do this for you (and some
    can even do it reasonably well within certain bounds), but IME the only
    practical solution (for Windows boxes) is to ensure that they always route
    traffic through a *nix box so it can do what Windows can't.

    And then there is routing based on source IP/MAC address - maybe not an issue
    for a simple home network, but certainly handy if you want to be able to allow
    guests on your WLAN (my WLAN is a seperate LAN segment which is independent of
    the LAN segment connected to the ADSL router, and for that matter my main LAN
    segment(s)) and route their traffic on a protocol by protocol basis completely
    differently to your own traffic.

    I could go on ;-)
    Lets see - Dead-Rat on a PC v Digital Unix on an Alpha ? I don't
    think I'd put my money on Dead-Rat. Oops - now I've probably offended
    a whole load of RedHat users as well ;-)

    FWIW I had a bad experince with Redhat many years ago and never looked
    at it again - at least not at home. But we use it at work, and well,
    the less said the better ....
    No apology necessary - this is Usenet after all ;-)
    Killa, Mar 15, 2006
  19. str0be

    Clint Sharp Guest

    I think I did, let me see, one Physical LAN (cables, switches, NICs etc)
    with two distinct subnets on it (net masks). You want to be able to
    route packets from a host on one subnet to a host on the other subnet,
    without using a router, just by adding an entry into the routing table?

    BTW, the example works, I use it occasionally.
    Agreed, it's not good for many things but then you'd not use it for
    those many things. I can use a screwdriver as a chisel but if I had my
    choice, I'd buy a chisel, if I only had a screwdriver and couldn't buy a
    chisel, then I'd make it work.
    Touche, but then I'd not want to do this on a PC (generic term for
    computer) and I'd probably buy a Packeteer if I needed to do it for a
    Hmm, Windows server product required IIRC, not something you could do on
    XP, but I'd guess that your boxes aren't running a 'desktop' OS either.
    Ahh, gist, not got? I have two Alpha boxes, one with Redhat (recently
    added). It's not fun.
    Well, they need the occasional kick, helps keep them in their place.
    Same here, any OS that can be brought to its knees simply by changing
    the IP address.... but that's another story.
    Probably more than enough been said already... fin?
    Clint Sharp, Mar 16, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.