How to configure a static route?

N

NetTechie

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2014
Messages
251
I'm trying to figure out how to setup a static route to disable NAT, for a second router on the network which is providing DHCP to computers connected to it's LAN ports. I put the second router on a separate IP address, first router hooked up through the second routers WAN port. The first router is connected to the modem. The second router is configured with a static ip on the same ip range as the first router on the WAN port. Is it possible to configure a static route, and disable NAT?

Diagram of the setup I have right now.
Code: 
::Windows Desktop / Windows Laptop / Linux Desktop / VoIP Phone::
192.168.2.x (DHCP Router2 assigned) 
     |
     |
[ethernet]
     |
     |
192.168.2.1 LAN Port -- [ additional devices can receive DHCP from Router2 LAN ports ]
::Router2:: 
192.168.1.230 WAN Port 
     |
     |
[ethernet]
     |
     |
LAN Port  --  [ devices assigned static IP addresses connected to the LAN ports do work ]
::SR10000 / SR300 / RT-N12D1::
SSID1 Wireless
     =
     =
     =
[wireless N 2.4Ghz] ===  [ many devices connected by SSID1 Wireless via DHCP Router1 assigned ]
     =
     =
     =
SSID1 Wireless
::Cisco 1142N::  
Ethernet Port
     |
     |
[ethernet]
     |
     |
::Switch1:: ---- [ many devices attached to this switch by ethernet via DHCP Router1 assigned ]
     |
     |
[ethernet]
     |
     |
192.168.1.1 LAN Port
::Router1::
x.x.x.x WAN Port (IP is dynamically assigned by ISP)
     |
     |
[ethernet]
     |
     |
Ethernet Port
::Cable Modem::
Cable connection
     |
     |
[cable wire]
     |
     |
...Internet...
 
Last edited:
Anyone? Seems it would not be too hard, I'm just not that familiar with exactly how IP addresses work with multiple routers. I do believe NAT is not supposed to be enabled except on the router connected directly to the modem.
 
Hello MrGuvernment, excellent question. The Cisco 1142N, while providing very good coverage and top speeds in areas of the house where signal was weak with other access points, does not work right with SR10000, SR300 and other such devices. I'm told it's not a setting, that it's just not a compatible device with the Cisco. Without the second router, no dhcp occurs on devices connected to the SR10000 or SR300 ethernet ports.
 
Last edited:
Because doing weird stuff and double NAT is fun?
(Most likely the reason why he gets strange routing/port forward issues).
//Danne
 
Do a flat network setup (single C-class and do dhcp on everything), if you're paranoid use VLANs. Doing double NAT and whatnot is just a bad idea.
//Danne
 
NetTechie said:
The Cisco 1142N [..] does not work right with SR10000, SR300 and other such devices. I'm told it's not a setting, that it's just not a compatible device with the Cisco.
Click to expand...

I would like to avoid using Router2, but the only other solution I see is to replace the Cisco 1142N as it refuses to pass DHCP to any device attached behind another device like the SR10000. I'm able to avoid this by adding the second Router2. That's why I'm asking how to setup the two routers without NAT enabled on Router2.

Alternately, if someone knows why the Cisco is doing this and a solution to fix it, I'm open to that option though I don't know if it is even possible to fix the Cisco.
 
Last edited:
Here is the Cisco 1142N config.txt file for examination, [SSID1] and [password] were the only things edited before posting:

Code: 
!
! Last configuration change at 19:11:06 UTC Fri Mar 1 2002
version 15.3
no service pad
service timestamps debug datetime msec
service timestamps log datetime msec
service password-encryption
!
hostname Cisco1142N
!
!
logging rate-limit console 9
enable secret 5 $1$sSeg$WgtaLhxZ5Wd.9.eRiwQ.c.
!
no aaa new-model
no ip source-route
no ip cef
!
!
!
!
dot11 syslog
!
dot11 ssid [SSID1]
   authentication open 
   authentication key-management wpa version 2
   wpa-psk ascii 7 [password]
!
!
!
!
!
username CISCO password 7 [password]
!
!
bridge irb
!
!
!
interface Dot11Radio0
 no ip address
 !
 encryption mode ciphers aes-ccm 
 !
 ssid [SSID1]
 !
 antenna gain 0
 speed  basic-1.0 2.0 5.5 11.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 18.0 24.0 36.0 48.0 54.0 m0. m1. m2. m3. m4. m5. m6. m7. m8. m9. m10. m11. m12. m13. m14. m15.
 channel 2437
 station-role root
 bridge-group 1
 bridge-group 1 subscriber-loop-control
 bridge-group 1 spanning-disabled
 bridge-group 1 block-unknown-source
 no bridge-group 1 source-learning
 no bridge-group 1 unicast-flooding
!
interface Dot11Radio1
 no ip address
 shutdown
 antenna gain 0
 peakdetect
 dfs band 3 block
 channel dfs
 station-role root
 bridge-group 1
 bridge-group 1 subscriber-loop-control
 bridge-group 1 spanning-disabled
 bridge-group 1 block-unknown-source
 no bridge-group 1 source-learning
 no bridge-group 1 unicast-flooding
!
interface GigabitEthernet0
 no ip address
 duplex auto
 speed auto
 bridge-group 1
 bridge-group 1 spanning-disabled
 no bridge-group 1 source-learning
!
interface BVI1
 mac-address 44d3.ca03.6e4a
 ip address 192.168.1.245 255.255.255.0
 ipv6 address dhcp
 ipv6 address autoconfig
 ipv6 enable
!
ip forward-protocol nd
ip http server
no ip http secure-server
ip http help-path http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/779/smbiz/prodconfig/help/eag
!
!
bridge 1 route ip
!
!
!
line con 0
line vty 0 4
 login local
 transport input all
!
end

This config was created by resetting the access point to default which deletes config.txt, then using the GUI to set the static IP of the access point for administration. After that I ran Express Setup to create the SSID1, and enabled the radio and set its channel (default is radio disabled, and channel is auto). During express setup I chose Access Point and Range as the settings for the SSID1.

That's all I configured on the 1142N.
 
Last edited:
Can you post a better picture, read real picture not ascii based. I can't follow the mess you've provided and am not willing to spend more time trying to figure it out. Please include models of devices in the picture itself.
 
You can use network notepad to create the diagram, the free version will run on win 7-8.x in windows vista compatibility mode.
 
stormy1 said:
You can use network notepad to create the diagram, the free version will run on win 7-8.x in windows vista compatibility mode.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip!

Hopefully this diagram works better.



I could provide the model in the picture of the routers in use, but I've changed them several times lately.
 
NetTechie said:
Thanks for the tip!

Hopefully this diagram works better.



I could provide the model in the picture of the routers in use, but I've changed them several times lately.
Click to expand...

Is there a link between router2 and anything in the top row? Also, is router1 is the DHCP server? what kind of switch is switch1?
 
Last edited:
I think I understand your setup now.

You are attempting to use the 1142N as an AP and nothing more. The SR10K is some crappy wireless bridge device with which you are trying to extend the network to Router2/PCs. You problem lies in that devices connected to the ethernet side of the SR10K are not receiving DHCP packets. This could be because the SR10K is blocking them(unlikely) or the 1142N is not passing them for MAC addresses it does not see direct associations with. Other wireless clients have no issue getting their DHCP leases.

If I am correct, add this line to the wireless interface and hopefully it will resolve that issue:
station-role root bridge wireless-clients

The real solution is to use something better suited for the bridging like a pair of Ubiquiti NanoStation M5s or even some powerline ethernet adapters or even better, run a cable.
 
Dew said:
You problem lies in that devices connected to the ethernet side of the SR10K are not receiving DHCP packets. This could be because the SR10K is blocking them(unlikely) or the 1142N is not passing them for MAC addresses it does not see direct associations with. Other wireless clients have no issue getting their DHCP leases.
Click to expand...

Short of a "real" solution, the Router2 does fix the problem which is correctly described above. Thanks for diagnosing the problem though. :)

I want to configure Router2 to be setup behind Router1.
 
As for making router 2 act as an independent DHCP server, there is little issue.

Set your DHCP range to 2-127 on router 1, set your DHCP range for 129-255 on router 2 with the same /24 subnet. The key thing to do is set the gateway to router 1 and block DHCP traffic on the uplink of router 2 to prevent the possibility of serving the other side of the network (Which would not be too much of an issue, since both DHCP servers would be giving router 1 as the default gateway).

This is not an elegant or even recommended solution, but it will work.
 
No thanks to anyone here with your opinions, I was able to figure out how to setup a static route. I watched youtube videos and eventually got it configured.

Speeds are now 50mbit through Router2, vs 30-40mbit before with NAT enabled. It also increased responsiveness for browsing.
 
NetTechie said:
No thanks to anyone here with your opinions, I was able to figure out how to setup a static route. I watched youtube videos and eventually got it configured.

Speeds are now 50mbit through Router2, vs 30-40mbit before with NAT enabled. It also increased responsiveness for browsing.
Click to expand...
Your welcome.
Sorry I wasted my time trying to help you :{
 
NetTechie said:
You did actually, with network notepad. That was helpful. I'm referring to those who know how to setup a static route and refused to tell me how.
Click to expand...
You did a piss poor job of defining the problem, how could someone answer when we did not know what you are trying to do?
Now you ticked off a lot of people who could help you next time you need help.
Who wants to spend time helping people who are rude and unappreciative?
 
I think it's not particularly nice that someone wants to know the whole setup, then after seeing how it is setup will not help with my specific question. I don't want to spend money on a different setup, which was the only real answer given to how to do a static route.

Maybe my static route isn't perfect, but it's this simple what I asked:

Router2 in Router mode (not Gateway). Or disable NAT. Depending on firmware.

Router1 LAN:
192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.230

Router2 LAN:
192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.230

That's what I asked for. I asked a question that was not allowed I guess.

I might also add, that setting a static ip works fine if you know how. I can set one, that resolves the problem as well. Unfortunately the person using the Amped Wireless device is also reinstalling frequently, and showing them how they have to setup a static IP every time they reinstall didn't seem worth learning to them. So I added a router, problem solved. Kinda, just poor throughput. As they are often doing net installs of Linux, this isn't great as it slows down the install considerably. Static routes upped the throughput, and made it more constant on speeds. I think it's not fair that nobody would show me how to do this. Why not just tell me how, instead of judging everything to do with the setup?
 
Last edited:
First off: no one owes you an answer, we do this in our spare time to help people and get help when we need it.

Unless all the information is posted how can someone give the right answer?
There are often several right answers some of which will work better than others. Without the information we don't know if setting routes would even help you.
Then every device is a little different in how you set up routes.

Further that you found the answer yourself, you learned something didn't you?
More than someone here feeding you the answer.
 
If there is a lack of specific information needed for how to do a static route, I'm happy to provide. Nobody asked me which router firmware I am using so they could specifically instruct me for that firmware. If they had, I'd have said.

I highly doubt that there are several ways to do a static route, and that any one of them would have worked.

stormy1 said:
First off: no one owes you an answer, we do this in our spare time to help people and get help when we need it.
Click to expand...

I don't agree, if someone asked me a question I'd be happy to help. That's not what happened.
 
Last edited:
NetTechie said:
<snipped> I was able to figure out how to setup a static route. I watched youtube videos and eventually got it configured.

Speeds are now 50mbit through Router2, vs 30-40mbit before with NAT enabled. It also increased responsiveness for browsing.
Click to expand...

^^^ I snipped it for you

NetTechie said:
I think it's not particularly nice that someone wants to know the whole setup, then after seeing how it is setup will not help with my specific question. I don't want to spend money on a different setup, which was the only real answer given to how to do a static route.

Maybe my static route isn't perfect, but it's this simple what I asked:

Router2 in Router mode (not Gateway). Or disable NAT. Depending on firmware.

Router1 LAN:
192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.230

Router2 LAN:
192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.230

That's what I asked for. I asked a question that was not allowed I guess.
Click to expand...

@NetTechie:

Your thread is appreciated.

You did, in fact, ask a specific question on how to configure a static route on your equipment.

You even solved the problem and posted how you solved it - This is VERY appreciated as not too many people follow up with solutions they ended up using to resolve an issue.


On the other hand, try to appreciate the fact that people took time to read through and understand your issue - let alone trying to provide feedback.

Whether they gave an opinion or an alternate possible solution ... they took time/effort.
Appreciate that.... appreciate the different perspectives others bring.

ps... yeah...that's my opinion ;)
 
I do appreciate the effort, especially Stormy1 who provided a tool I will continue to use, most likely for all future network diagrams.

I note that people cared, I just do not understand why not a single person asked the required questions to provide me with the answer, primarily router model to give me specific directions that would apply to it's firmware for static routes. I've tried a number of models, so I left the model out.

I do know there are better solutions, I'm aware. I just don't see the point when it's only 1 device having the problem, a computer behind a Amped Wireless device that provides ethernet access to wireless. I'd put a wireless card in that computer, except that most Linux net installs don't come with the right drivers for this and it would add complexity for the user (a 91 year old).

If I look on our router, there are 16 ip leases, so it's just 1 device with the issue. The suggested solution of powerline ethernet adapters is a solution I would consider, but at the moment it seems overkill since the solution I am using with Router2 provides 50mbit over wireless now, and our cable connection is only able to do around 60mbit. The current Router2 I am using for this is a router we paid $10 for at the Good Will, pretty inexpensive solution and I had it on hand, so no waiting to implement it. I'm not the one funding the hardware for this, so justifying the need for a $180 outdoor wireless kit seems rather challenging. I think my reasons are valid to run a second router behind the main one, at least from a financial standpoint. If they ever put in fiber internet in our neighborhood, obviously my solution would no longer be valid.

As far as the answer to what routers I'm planning to settle on? pfSense as main router (converted computer) and Router2 runs DD-WRT.
 
Last edited:
A lot of us work in the trade and like to steer people towards solid supportable solutions. Yours might have worked, but you were looking to solve a bigger problem beyond static routes IMO.
 
I'd like to create a static route to the 192.168.2.0 network so if I wanted I can access administration features of devices connected to the LAN ports of Router2. Haven't figured that one out yet, and I guess I'm on my own because my setup is "not supported".
 
On the router 192.168.1.1 put in a route:
192.168.2.0/255.255.255.0 192.168.1.230

IE. From 192.168.1.1 route to 192.168.1.230 to get to 192.168.2.0/255.255.255.0

On the router 192.168.2.1 put in a default route:
0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1

IE. Route to 192.168.1.1 for all non-local traffic

Disable NATing,Firewall, etc. on Router2. All it is going to do is route. Now how to do all of that on each device is device dependent.

...I can access administration features of devices connected to the LAN ports of Router2.
Click to expand...

If the routing is working, then this should work as well. Unless you have firewalls in place.
 
Hi djflow195, thank you for helping me! :)

The main router (192.168.1.1) is set to the settings above already.

Now Router2 needs to be set to:

0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1

Maybe you answered this already, but do I need to put it on LAN or WAN for the port this route applies to?

I disabled the firewall, good catch, needed to do that. NAT is disabled as it is in Router mode (DD-WRT).

Thank you so much!
 
You do realize that this is caused by you having double NAT which ppl were pointing out being a bad idea? It also breaks all kinds of port forwards including UPNP.
//Danne
 
^^ that's the issue, people tried to help with a PROPER set up, not a hack job set up which i am sure he will be fixing later and asking for more help and wondering why X doesn't work when people already warned them what they are trying is...wrong..not proper..may work, but is not recommended at all by anyone anywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top