Router setup

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 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.
_____________________________________________
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 192.168.20.51

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.

Thanks
Frank
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

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 192.168.20.51

This 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 192.168.1.254
Netmask: 255.255.255.0 (AKA /4)
Static Addresses: 192.168.1.2-63
DHCP Addresses: 192.168.1.64-253

Plus 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.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs