Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers
> Bill Freeman wrote: > > > > > The chart that I read showed the V4 to have half as much of each > > kind of memory as the V3. No other important differences. Or > > my memory (in my head) may be failing if you have to go back > > further to get a full memory WRT54G. > > > > Where did you find that chart? The one I looked at a few months ago > showed V5 having half the memory of V4, and V4 having the same as > V3 and earlier. I'm probably mis-remembering then. And/or I'm remembering the chart for the WRT54GS. What I do remember is memory shrinking twice between the biggest machines and the VXworks box. Maybe it was from V2 to V3. I can't find the chart right not because the machine with the browse history is at home. I'm pretty sure that I found it off of Seattle Wireless, though maybe a reference rather than hosted by them. Bill ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers
Travis Roy writes: > Plus you can always mount a share if you need more space for logging > or whatnot. Doesn't dd-wrt come with syslog? Wouldn't it be better to syslog -> network -> logging server? Regards, --kevin -- GnuPG ID: B280F24E And the madness of the crowd alumni.unh.edu!kdc Is an epileptic fit -- Tom Waits ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers
Now, the wrt54G has always been 16/4 until the switch to VXworks w/ v5 The wrt54GS was 32/8 until it went 16/4 with v4.0 and 16/2 with v5 and VXworks.If you want to buy a new, linux version, the wrt54GL still runs linux (that's the L) and is 16/4 like the wrt54G v4So, the bad news is that they switched to VXworks and the RAM/Flash reduction outweighed the licensing costs. However, people were buying enough of them because they could modify the linux firmware to justify a continued linux version. I have the 16/4 version and there's more than enough room for dd-wrt to work. Plus you can always mount a share if you need more space for logging or whatnot.I love mine, but I think I'm do for a firmware upgrade.
Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers
On 6/7/06, John Abreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bill Freeman wrote:>> The chart that I read showed the V4 to have half as much of each> kind of memory as the V3. No other important differences. Or> my memory (in my head) may be failing if you have to go back > further to get a full memory WRT54G.>Where did you find that chart? The one I looked at a few months agoshowed V5 having half the memory of V4, and V4 having the same asV3 and earlier. As Mike said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRT54GNow, the wrt54G has always been 16/4 until the switch to VXworks w/ v5The wrt54GS was 32/8 until it went 16/4 with v4.0 and 16/2 with v5 and VXworks.If you want to buy a new, linux version, the wrt54GL still runs linux (that's the L) and is 16/4 like the wrt54G v4So, the bad news is that they switched to VXworks and the RAM/Flash reduction outweighed the licensing costs. However, people were buying enough of them because they could modify the linux firmware to justify a continued linux version. --John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & UnixICQ 28611923 / AIM abreauj / JABBER [EMAIL PROTECTED] / YAHOO abreaujEmail [EMAIL PROTECTED] / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99 ___gnhlug-discuss mailing listgnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers
On 6/7/06, Bill Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think that what I need to do is disable NAT and firewall on the Linksys. Supposedly, this is possible with some LinkSys routers. My WRT54G v2 with LinkSys firmware 4.20.7 has it under Setup -> Advanced Routing -> Operating Mode. Setting that to "Router" (instead of "Gateway") will disable NAT and have it act like an "ordinary" router. Supposedly -- I've never tried this myself. Then would I be able to configure the Netgear's DHCP server to tell the wired folks to route to 192.168.1 via the IP that the Linksys has on the 192.168.0 network? Or woould it be possible to hide the static route from 192.168.0 to 192.168.1 entirely in the Netgear's internal routing rules? That would all depend on the Netgear. It will have to support manually-defined static routes, and be able to handle forwarding packets back out the interface they came in on. The Netgear's IP stack may generate lots of ICMP redirect messages in this case, too. It sees packets going out the same way they came in, and properly tries to sell the sending host there's a better way. It would be more efficient, from IP's point of view, to just define static routes on the clients. It's a bigger administrative headache, of course. You can supposedly hand out static routes via DHCP, although I've never tried it. Or I guess I might be able to connect the routers via downstream ports on both, using a cross over cable. Then I either need to disable DHCP on the Linksys (that I'm sure that I can do) ... This is what I would usually recommend, instead of the routed configuration described above. Just bridge everything together, using only the WAP parts of the LinkSys, and ignoring the router parts. Or, perhaps better still, replace the Netgear router+switch unit with the all-in-one LinkSys router+WAP+switch unit. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:03:00PM -0400, John Abreau wrote: > Bill Freeman wrote: > > The chart that I read showed the V4 to have half as much of each > > kind of memory as the V3. No other important differences. Or > > my memory (in my head) may be failing if you have to go back > > further to get a full memory WRT54G. > > Where did you find that chart? The one I looked at a few months ago > showed V5 having half the memory of V4, and V4 having the same as > V3 and earlier. John, I saw the same chart you did. I think Bill did too, but he must have used 'C' at some point in the past and mentally translated it to 0 thru 4, rather than 1 thru 5. :) -- Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA. Speech Recognition Technology was used to create this e-mail ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers
Bill Freeman wrote: > > The chart that I read showed the V4 to have half as much of each > kind of memory as the V3. No other important differences. Or > my memory (in my head) may be failing if you have to go back > further to get a full memory WRT54G. > Where did you find that chart? The one I looked at a few months ago showed V5 having half the memory of V4, and V4 having the same as V3 and earlier. -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix ICQ 28611923 / AIM abreauj / JABBER [EMAIL PROTECTED] / YAHOO abreauj Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9 PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers
> > > > I will probably get around to playing with this on one of my > > personal V4 WRT54GSs, but I'm disinclined to give one of these > > to the company, given how hard it has been for me to find them. > > (I'd really like to own a V3, the last max memory model, but I > > haven't seen one.) > > I'm interested to hear that you wish you could own a V3 because > when I look at the charts shown here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRT54G > > ...I don't see important differences between the V3 and V4. > Are the charts misleading? The chart that I read showed the V4 to have half as much of each kind of memory as the V3. No other important differences. Or my memory (in my head) may be failing if you have to go back further to get a full memory WRT54G. Bill ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers
Lloyd Kvam offered opinions and advice, thanks. > Presumably you are controlling the DHCP assignments so that your Name > Server knows how to resolve names to numbers and DNS is not tied into > those routers. The name server here is "Hey, Jim, what's your IP address today", so it won't have any trouble tracking the configuration. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers
I'm interested to hear that you wish you could own a V3 becausewhen I look at the charts shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRT54G...I don't see important differences between the V3 and V4.Are the charts misleading? He's probably thinking of the WRT54GS, the memory amounts go down after that.
Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers
On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 12:09 -0400, Bill Freeman wrote: > Where I'm working we have a Netgear router attached to the DSL modem, > to which all the wired users are connected, with NAT and DHCP serving > up 192.168.0.xxx addresses. > > One of the things wired to the Netgear is the "internet" port of a > Linksys wireless-G router (probably too new to install Linux on it), > which serves up a wireless network on 192.168.1.xxx. > > This works pretty well. Everyone can get to the internet. The local > print server/disk server is on the wired network, so everyone can use > it. Folks on the wired network can access services running on wired > machines. > > But, of course, folks on the wired network can't access services on > machines connected to the Linksys (even using a wired connection to > it). The trouble is that we would like to offer the latest development > version of our web app running on our wireless development machines to > the marketing folks on the wired network. > > Sure, it's easy to configure a particular port accessed at the "internet" > port of the Linksys to go to a specific machine on the wireless network, > but we would like to have multiple marketing folks able to access multiple > developer's machine's servers. And we don't want to re-configure the > router everytime we want to change who serves what. And spur of the > moment instigation of an ssh session from a marketing machine to a specific > developer machine is desired. > > I think that what I need to do is disable NAT and firewall on the Linksys. > (We would still be protected from the internet by the firewall in the > Netgear.) If that's possible. Sounds good to me. > Then would I be able to configure the > Netgear's DHCP server to tell the wired folks to route to 192.168.1 via > the IP that the Linksys has on the 192.168.0 network? Or woould it be > possible to hide the static route from 192.168.0 to 192.168.1 entirely > in the Netgear's internal routing rules? I would expect this to work. The netgear router is the default for everyone in 192.168.0.0/24. The netgear knows to reach 192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.0.xxx - the linksys ip address on the 192.168.0.0 sub net from the internal entry. I lent out my linksys router, so I can not test this - I do not have a production system at risk here so I could test with impunity. Presumably you are controlling the DHCP assignments so that your Name Server knows how to resolve names to numbers and DNS is not tied into those routers. > (The wireless folks already > go to the Linksys for routing to 192.168.0, since it's not within their > local network's netmask.) Or am I likely to have to hand configure all > the wired guys with a static route to 192.168.1? > > Or I guess I might be able to connect the routers via downstream ports on > both, using a cross over cable. Then I either need to disable DHCP on > the Linksys (that I'm sure that I can do), or arrange for both DHCP servers > to specify a 255.255.254.0 netmask, and the Netgear as the router to the > internet. (I'd actually like to keep the wireless guys with 192.168.1 > addresses and the wired guys with 192.168.0 addesses, but this is a much > softer requirement.) > > I'd appreciate comments and (some of the) suggestions. > > Bill > > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss -- Lloyd Kvam Venix Corp ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers
On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 12:09 -0400, Bill Freeman wrote: > Where I'm working we have a Netgear router attached to the DSL modem, > to which all the wired users are connected, with NAT and DHCP serving > up 192.168.0.xxx addresses. > > One of the things wired to the Netgear is the "internet" port of a > Linksys wireless-G router (probably too new to install Linux on it), > which serves up a wireless network on 192.168.1.xxx. > > This works pretty well. Everyone can get to the internet. The local > print server/disk server is on the wired network, so everyone can use > it. Folks on the wired network can access services running on wired > machines. > > But, of course, folks on the wired network can't access services on > machines connected to the Linksys (even using a wired connection to > it). The trouble is that we would like to offer the latest development > version of our web app running on our wireless development machines to > the marketing folks on the wired network. > > Sure, it's easy to configure a particular port accessed at the "internet" > port of the Linksys to go to a specific machine on the wireless network, > but we would like to have multiple marketing folks able to access multiple > developer's machine's servers. And we don't want to re-configure the > router everytime we want to change who serves what. And spur of the > moment instigation of an ssh session from a marketing machine to a specific > developer machine is desired. > > I think that what I need to do is disable NAT and firewall on the Linksys. > (We would still be protected from the internet by the firewall in the > Netgear.) If that's possible. Sounds good to me. > Then would I be able to configure the > Netgear's DHCP server to tell the wired folks to route to 192.168.1 via > the IP that the Linksys has on the 192.168.0 network? Or woould it be > possible to hide the static route from 192.168.0 to 192.168.1 entirely > in the Netgear's internal routing rules? I would expect this to work. The netgear router is the default for everyone in 192.168.0.0/24. The netgear knows to reach 192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.0.xxx - the linksys ip address on the 192.168.0.0 sub net from the internal entry. I lent out my linksys router, so I can not test this - I do not have a production system at risk here so I could test with impunity. Presumably you are controlling the DHCP assignments so that your Name Server knows how to resolve names to numbers and DNS is not tied into those routers. > (The wireless folks already > go to the Linksys for routing to 192.168.0, since it's not within their > local network's netmask.) Or am I likely to have to hand configure all > the wired guys with a static route to 192.168.1? > > Or I guess I might be able to connect the routers via downstream ports on > both, using a cross over cable. Then I either need to disable DHCP on > the Linksys (that I'm sure that I can do), or arrange for both DHCP servers > to specify a 255.255.254.0 netmask, and the Netgear as the router to the > internet. (I'd actually like to keep the wireless guys with 192.168.1 > addresses and the wired guys with 192.168.0 addesses, but this is a much > softer requirement.) > > I'd appreciate comments and (some of the) suggestions. > > Bill > > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss -- Lloyd Kvam Venix Corp. 1 Court Street, Suite 378 Lebanon, NH 03766-1358 voice: 603-653-8139 fax:320-210-3409 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers
> I will probably get around to playing with this on one of my > personal V4 WRT54GSs, but I'm disinclined to give one of these > to the company, given how hard it has been for me to find them. > (I'd really like to own a V3, the last max memory model, but I > haven't seen one.) I'm interested to hear that you wish you could own a V3 because when I look at the charts shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRT54G ...I don't see important differences between the V3 and V4. Are the charts misleading? ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers
On 6/7/06, Bill Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Where I'm working we have a Netgear router attached to the DSL modem,to which all the wired users are connected, with NAT and DHCP servingup 192.168.0.xxx addresses.One of the things wired to the Netgear is the "internet" port of a Linksys wireless-G router (probably too new to install Linux on it),which serves up a wireless network on 192.168.1.xxx.This works pretty well. Everyone can get to the internet. The localprint server/disk server is on the wired network, so everyone can use it. Folks on the wired network can access services running on wiredmachines.I've set one up like this:++ +--+ +---+ +--+| router |---| FW |-| linksys |---| ethernet switch | ++ +--+ +---+ +--+ Internet LANMy router & firewall had 192.168.1.1 and .2The LAN was 10.0.0.xThe firewall did NAT. It also served to the LAN:DHCP to the linksys & everything on that sideThe linksys did not do DHCP.I did not use the 5th port on the linksys. If I did, I think I chaged it so it was on the same lan as the other 4. The linksys was a v2.2 wrt54g
Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:09 pm, Bill Freeman wrote: > I think that what I need to do is disable NAT and firewall on the Linksys. > (We would still be protected from the internet by the firewall in the > Netgear.) If that's possible. Then would I be able to configure the > Netgear's DHCP server to tell the wired folks to route to 192.168.1 via > the IP that the Linksys has on the 192.168.0 network? Or woould it be > possible to hide the static route from 192.168.0 to 192.168.1 entirely > in the Netgear's internal routing rules? (The wireless folks already > go to the Linksys for routing to 192.168.0, since it's not within their > local network's netmask.) Or am I likely to have to hand configure all > the wired guys with a static route to 192.168.1? > > Or I guess I might be able to connect the routers via downstream ports on > both, using a cross over cable. Then I either need to disable DHCP on > the Linksys (that I'm sure that I can do), or arrange for both DHCP servers > to specify a 255.255.254.0 netmask, and the Netgear as the router to the > internet. (I'd actually like to keep the wireless guys with 192.168.1 > addresses and the wired guys with 192.168.0 addesses, but this is a much > softer requirement.) > > I'd appreciate comments and (some of the) suggestions. I've got setups like this and even in my home. That said, I've got wireless and wired users in the same subnet in that case. I would suggest just plugging a normal port in each router together. That way, you're using the wireless router itself as more of a wireless hub (access point) instead of as a router. If you want to split up the subnet between wired and wireless users, you may have to get more creative. You could certainly give static DHCP assignments to MAC addresses that you know are in the wireless segment for example. -N ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers
> > > > > > One of the things wired to the Netgear is the "internet" port of a > > Linksys wireless-G router (probably too new to install Linux on it), > > which serves up a wireless network on 192.168.1.xxx. > > > > I would check the dd-wrt website and see if you can install linux on it, you > might luck out. This is almost certainly a V5 Linksys, so Linux won't fit. Not that I'm probably welcome to re-flash it anyway. > What I would do is find a linksys G router that you can install dd-wrt on > (if this one turns out to be one you can't). I will probably get around to playing with this on one of my personal V4 WRT54GSs, but I'm disinclined to give one of these to the company, given how hard it has been for me to find them. (I'd really like to own a V3, the last max memory model, but I haven't seen one.) > You never said anything about the netgear, if it's a small one similar to > the linksys I would replace the netgear with a dd-wrt linksys and put the > wireless on the DMZ and do it that way. I'm not sure how the DMZ helps. Then both routers are exposed to internet traffic directly, so must run firewalls and NAT. Then how does the wired guy on 192.168.0.100 access the tomcat server on 192.168.1.109? > Just a thought anyway. Might be worth it in time savings. The other option > if the netgear supports a DMZ port is to put the linksys in bridge mode and > hang it off the DMZ port on the netgear. > The linksys has a DMZ port, but, again, I don't see how this helps. Everyone can already access the internet. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Dealing with multiple layers of routers
One of the things wired to the Netgear is the "internet" port of aLinksys wireless-G router (probably too new to install Linux on it), which serves up a wireless network on 192.168.1.xxx.I would check the dd-wrt website and see if you can install linux on it, you might luck out.What I would do is find a linksys G router that you can install dd-wrt on (if this one turns out to be one you can't). You never said anything about the netgear, if it's a small one similar to the linksys I would replace the netgear with a dd-wrt linksys and put the wireless on the DMZ and do it that way.Just a thought anyway. Might be worth it in time savings. The other option if the netgear supports a DMZ port is to put the linksys in bridge mode and hang it off the DMZ port on the netgear.
