[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Help needed with home network configuration

On Fri 16 Mar 2018 at 13:09:00 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
> >
> > --1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> > Content-Disposition: inline
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> >
> > On Thu 15 Mar 2018 at 10:18:20 (-0700), Don Armstrong wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, David Wright wrote:
> >> > When you reprogram routers with dd-wrt, does that allow it to do, say,
> >> > wired bridging even though the manufacturer's formware doesn't allow
> >> > for that?
> >> 
> >> openwrt and dd-wrt both allow wired bridging[1] (or pseudo-bridging by
> >> routing if your wireless hardware doesn't support that).
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 1: I suppose there might be some network hardware which doesn't support
> >> actual bridging of wired interfaces, but I've yet to see such an
> >> example.
> >
> > I think the router I've been using for the last few years is one.
> > Although the User Manual from May 2013¹ has a brief section on
> > bridging, the June 2014² revision is missing that part. Both have
> > a "Wireless Repeating" link on the figure for Advanced Wireless
> > Settings, but the link is not present in the actual configuration
> > screen on the device.
> That's probably talking about "WDS bridging", not what Don is talking
> about.  That's an entirely different can of worms.

That's what I don't want, if it means the router-router connection
is wireless because (a) we have the CAT5 cable available and
(b) poor wireless transmission between the two areas is the problem
I'm trying to solve.

> > Required topology:
> >
> >
> >             ╲│╱                   ╲│╱                 ╲│╱
> >          ┌───────┐             ┌───────┐           ┌───────┐
> >          │W     L╞    CAT5     │W     L╞═PC        │ ROKUs │
> > [Modem]══╡A     A╞═════════════╡A     A╞           │  etc  │
> >          │N     N╞             │N     N╞           └───────┘
> >          │       ╞═PC          │       ╞═PC
> >          └───────┘             └───────┘
> >
> >
> > ¹ WNDR3400v3_UM_10May2013.pdf
> > ² WNDR3400v3_UM_19June2014.pdf
> "PC" on the left side won't be able to talk to anything connected to the
> right side (unless you punch holes in the "WAN" of the right-side
> router). Suppose if that's your goal, it'll work fine (barring
> double-NAT for the right-side devices, if that matters).

Well, I *think* that that "punching" is the functionality that some
routers have and others don't. I'm trying to determine whether the
router Left does anything out of the ordinary other than notice rather
heavy traffic out of one port. If not, then I could put our current
router as Left and buy a better one for Right.

I think the double NAT is essential as Left can only send to one MAC
and therefore one IP address out of the CAT5 port.

What I need to contradict in my previous post is that the two routers
*can* use different SSIDs, because anything that roams is able to
switch between different SSIDs. The Rokus don't roam in that sense,
and can manually select between different networks if and when we
move them about. (They are three different models with different
pros and cons.)

So I think what I want is something like
and not (so much) something like
where the router-router link is LAN-LAN.
But I'd be happy to try the second method instead if that meant
I could keep this router. Not, however, if I had to use WEP/None
for security. (I can't work out the relevance of that demand in
the User Manual.)


Reply to: