Network Question

[mojo1701]

Is it possible to connect two routers on one connection?

 

[mojo1701]

*bump*

 

[Rackhir]

What exactly are you trying to do? Is this just so you have more network ports? You should be able to just simply turn off the routing functions so you can hook it up as another switch. Alternatively you could have the 2nd router map it's ports to a single internal network address 192,168.1.XX and make sure none of the other devices on the first router are using that address.

 

[mojo1701]

Essentially, have 1 router connected to three computers on floor 2, and have another router on floor 1 connected to the router on floor 2 but also connected to 3 other computers on floor 1.

 

[Rackhir]

Either of the setups I described above should work. However, if you are not using the second setup I described, you will probably want to connect them using one of the regular ethernet ports, not the output/wan port. This may require an ethernet crossover cable. Some routers have a port labled uplink which can be used to hook up to another hub without using a crossover cable.

 

[andargor]

If I understand correctly, you need three networks defined in your configuration. One for the machines on Router 1 (floor 1), one for the machines on Router 2 (floor 2), and one between the two routers.

For example:

- Machines on floor 1: network 192.168.1.0 mask 255.255.255.0 (router interface IP 192.168.1.1, machine IP 192.168.1.2 to 254 broadcast 192.168.1.255)
- Machines on floor 2: network 192.168.2.0 mask 255.255.255.0 (router interface IP 192.168.2.1, machine IP 192.168.2.2 to 254 broadcast 192.168.2.255)
- Between the two routers: network 192.168.3.0 mask 255.255.255.252 (router 1 interface IP 192.168.3.1, router 2 interface IP 192.168.3.2, broadcast 192.168.3.3)

Routing, of course, must be properly configured so that all machines see all other machines.

But I'm wondering why you are doing this for your setup. It's much easier to have hubs or switches to have all the machines on the same network, and perhaps only one router for net access.

Andargor

 

[mojo1701]

Well, it's not me doing this. It's a friend, but he is networking this way mainly because he "doesn't like the idea of having all of those ethernet cables running around on crazy distances."

 

[IronWolf]

Is this a home or business?

In any event Andargor is right, simplify if you can. If we are talking small office or home just use one router for your Internet connection. Then use hubs or switches on each floor from there.

 

[andargor]

Well, it's not me doing this. It's a friend, but he is networking this way mainly because he "doesn't like the idea of having all of those ethernet cables running around on crazy distances."

Most hubs or switches have an uplink port. Tell your friend to use that and have only one crossover cable running between floors. He'll avoid unnecessary routing configuration problems.

The only reason he should be using routers is if he wants to segregate heavy traffic on one LAN from the other, such as large file transfers or high-bandwidth streaming video. Even then, with the low number of machines and a 100 Mbps network, it shouldn't be an issue. A switch with a couple of VLANs could also do the trick in this case, but again I still think it unnecessary.

EDIT: Or just use one single wireless hub, with encryption enabled of course. No cables.

Andargor

 

[Nikmal]

Well, it's not me doing this. It's a friend, but he is networking this way mainly because he "doesn't like the idea of having all of those ethernet cables running around on crazy distances."

Instead of worrying about all the wires like he does.. why not go with a wireless router/switch instead.. no worries about cables or how to connect the two/three of the routers together then? That makes more sense to me.