Simple Routing - Routers

This is a discussion on Simple Routing - Routers ; I am not an IT person, so this is a new realm for me. This is for a small company. We have been using 192.168.1.0/24 for some time now, but we're beginning to run out of the 250 something spaces ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Simple Routing

  1. Simple Routing

    I am not an IT person, so this is a new realm for me. This is for a
    small company. We have been using 192.168.1.0/24 for some time now, but
    we're beginning to run out of the 250 something spaces we have
    available (believe it or not..) So what are our options? I believe the
    best option is to add internal routers to have different subnets, like
    192.168.2.0 and 192.168.3.0, etc.. However, whenever I look at routers,
    they use weird protocols for the WAN port, like ISDN, etc.. We just
    need simple Ethernet in and out?? what am I missing here?


  2. Re: Simple Routing

    "ValeX" wrote in message
    news:1144425370.244374.168950@v46g2000cwv.googlegr oups.com...
    > I am not an IT person, so this is a new realm for me. This is for a
    > small company. We have been using 192.168.1.0/24 for some time now, but
    > we're beginning to run out of the 250 something spaces we have
    > available (believe it or not..) So what are our options? I believe the
    > best option is to add internal routers to have different subnets, like
    > 192.168.2.0 and 192.168.3.0, etc.. However, whenever I look at routers,
    > they use weird protocols for the WAN port, like ISDN, etc.. We just
    > need simple Ethernet in and out?? what am I missing here?


    Nothing.
    While ISDN never took off big in the US, it is not weird.
    So what are you really trying to accomplish.
    >




  3. Re: Simple Routing

    I'm ultimately trying to group the computers on our network a little
    better, and have more than 254 computers on the network.


  4. Re: Simple Routing

    > I believe the best option is to add internal routers to have
    > different subnets, like 192.168.2.0 and 192.168.3.0, etc..


    You can do this with a consumer-grade Linksys router.

  5. Re: Simple Routing

    On 7 Apr 2006 08:56:10 -0700, "ValeX" wrote:

    >I am not an IT person, so this is a new realm for me. This is for a
    >small company. We have been using 192.168.1.0/24 for some time now, but
    >we're beginning to run out of the 250 something spaces we have
    >available (believe it or not..) So what are our options? I believe the
    >best option is to add internal routers to have different subnets, like
    >192.168.2.0 and 192.168.3.0, etc.. However, whenever I look at routers,
    >they use weird protocols for the WAN port, like ISDN, etc.. We just
    >need simple Ethernet in and out?? what am I missing here?


    Please post the make and model of your existing router so we may be
    able to help. ALso the same info for your switches.

    Bob

  6. Re: Simple Routing

    "ValeX" wrote in message
    news:1144442532.470571.304570@j33g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
    > I'm ultimately trying to group the computers on our network a little
    > better, and have more than 254 computers on the network.
    >


    Routers will work, and no need to worry about the wierd WAN connections
    But it would be better if we knew how you were presently connected, I.E. the
    types of equipment you are now using and how it is used.



  7. Re: Simple Routing


    ValeX wrote:
    > I believe the
    > best option is to add internal routers to have different subnets, like
    > 192.168.2.0 and 192.168.3.0, etc.. However, whenever I look at routers,
    > they use weird protocols for the WAN port, like ISDN, etc.. We just
    > need simple Ethernet in and out?? what am I missing here?


    You could just use a different address arrangement that provides more
    addresses.

    However, if you insist, you can readily cascade routers. No weird
    protocols are involved on the WAN end. Just set a static IP address.
    You may have to do some extra configuring to get the separate LANs to
    communicate.

    I'd go with 10.x.x.x if I were you. It's so much easier.


  8. Re: Simple Routing

    Alright, new problem.. Here is current setup

    Router's WAN is 192.168.1.4
    Router's LAN is 192.168.4.0
    'Server' Computer is on the router LAN and is 192.168.4.10

    Firewall providers made it so that anything going to 192.168.4.0 goes
    through 192.168.1.4 (assuming that they changed their router tables).
    Then they linked one of our external IP's to 192.168.4.10.

    So, results?

    - Linksys router set to 'gateway mode' - Server PC gets internet, can
    ping 192.168.1.0 computers, but CANNOT be seen from the external IP,
    and cannot be seen from the 192.168.1.0 PC's (192.168.1.15 cannot ping
    192.168.4.10)

    - Linksys router set to 'router mode' - Server cannot access the
    internet, cannot ping 192.168.1.0 computers, BUT!!!! CAN be seen from
    the external IP, and can be seen from the 192.168.1.0 computers!!!!

    What the hell.. is this a setting with the 'server' machine? or the
    router? And.. what should the 'default gateway' on the Server PC be?
    192.168.1.1 (our firewall, which is the default gateway for all the
    192.168.1.0 PC's) or 192.168.4.1 (IP of router on LAN side of router)?

    Im lost....


  9. Re: Simple Routing

    > 'router mode'

    Should be the mode that you want.

    > what should the 'default gateway' on the Server PC be?


    The default gateway needs to reside in the same logical network.

    I'm assuming you've got something like the following and correct me if
    I'm wrong.

    [nat router]_(192.168.1.0/24)_[router]_(192.168.4.0/24)

    The main issue with this configuration is that most people don't know
    how to configure routing. There's two ways to handle such a configuration.

    1) Configure the nat router with a static route to 192.168.4.0 and
    configure the nat router as the default gateway of the router. Hosts may
    use either router as their default gateway, barring any remote gateway.

    2) Configure the nat router as the default gateway of the router. Hosts
    must use the router as their default gateway.

  10. Re: Simple Routing

    You are correct on the settings. the NAT router is out of our reach
    (its in the building, but we can't configure it without calling the
    managed security people and getting them to do it. And, if I am
    correct, they already configured it to route 192.168.4.0 traffic to
    192.168.1.4 (IP of router on WAN port)

    I tried #2, but I must be doing something wrong! My settings for the
    'cheapy' linksys are
    - Static IP
    - WAN IP Address : 192.168.1.4
    - Subnet Mask - 255.255.255.0
    - Default Gateway Address 192.168.1.1
    - DNS (just the original DNS settings we use for out network)


  11. Re: Simple Routing

    You are correct on the settings. the NAT router is out of our reach
    (its in the building, but we can't configure it without calling the
    managed security people and getting them to do it. And, if I am
    correct, they already configured it to route 192.168.4.0 traffic to
    192.168.1.4 (IP of router on WAN port)

    I tried #2, but I must be doing something wrong! My settings for the
    'cheapy' linksys are
    - Static IP
    - WAN IP Address : 192.168.1.4
    - Subnet Mask - 255.255.255.0
    - Default Gateway Address 192.168.1.1
    - DNS (just the original DNS settings we use for out network)


  12. Re: Simple Routing

    You are correct on the settings. the NAT router is out of our reach
    (its in the building, but we can't configure it without calling the
    managed security people and getting them to do it. And, if I am
    correct, they already configured it to route 192.168.4.0 traffic to
    192.168.1.4 (IP of router on WAN port)

    I tried #2, but I must be doing something wrong! My settings for the
    'cheapy' linksys are
    - Static IP
    - WAN IP Address : 192.168.1.4
    - Subnet Mask - 255.255.255.0
    - Default Gateway Address 192.168.1.1
    - DNS (just the original DNS settings we use for out network)


  13. Re: Simple Routing

    oops.. I REALLY did not mean to post that thrice.. Sorry!


  14. Re: Simple Routing

    > they already configured it to route 192.168.4.0 traffic to
    > 192.168.1.4 (IP of router on WAN port)


    That should certainly be confirmed.

    > I tried #2, but I must be doing something wrong!


    You're configuring all computers to use the linksys as their default
    gateway? I'm not talking about just the computers in 4.0. If two hosts
    are using the same default gateway router, there is no reason they
    should be unable to communicate, barring nat or some kind of firewall on
    the router. Do you perform troubleshooting with IPs or names? Be aware
    that a stateless name resolution protocol will not work across broadcast
    domains.

  15. Re: Simple Routing

    Ya kinda lost me on that last part....

    I want all the computers on the 1.0 network to stay the way they are
    (gateway of 192.168.1.1) but I assume that the firewall providers got
    it right, since when set to router mode, even though I cannot get to
    the internet from the machine itself, the external IP that is assigned
    to the 192.168.4.10 machine works! (so outside can see this
    computer)....

    I'm not really an IT guy, just started playing with this stuff a few
    days ago.


  16. Re: Simple Routing

    > I cannot get to the internet from the machine itself

    Traceroute to google and see where the traffic is getting lost.

  17. Re: Simple Routing

    > 2) Configure the nat router as the default gateway of the router. Hosts
    > must use the router as their default gateway.


    Actually, a static route would still be required at the edge to get
    traffic from the Internet...

  18. Re: Simple Routing

    I get nothing....

    tracert goes to 192.168.4.1 and then stops....


  19. Re: Simple Routing

    > tracert goes to 192.168.4.1 and then stops....

    I think you'll have to hash it out with the security administrators.

  20. Re: Simple Routing


    You don't need to do any routing whatsoever to acomplish what you're
    trying to do, just grow the subnet. ie, change your subnet mask to
    something like 255.255.252.0, which gives you the first four /24's to
    play with. You can just leave your existing routing hardware and
    infrastructure in place, just make sure you chance the subnet mask for
    all the internally connected hardware so it will see the now expanded
    subnet.

    ValeX wrote:
    > I am not an IT person, so this is a new realm for me. This is for a
    > small company. We have been using 192.168.1.0/24 for some time now, but
    > we're beginning to run out of the 250 something spaces we have
    > available (believe it or not..) So what are our options? I believe the
    > best option is to add internal routers to have different subnets, like
    > 192.168.2.0 and 192.168.3.0, etc.. However, whenever I look at routers,
    > they use weird protocols for the WAN port, like ISDN, etc.. We just
    > need simple Ethernet in and out?? what am I missing here?
    >


+ Reply to Thread