Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Simon Hutson]

Make sure each one has a unique IP address??
Switches don't have addresses, but routers do. Maybe that is getting in your way .....

I agree. If you reset both units, they will both default to the static IP address 192.168.0.1 (regardless of the DHCP settings). When you connect unit A to unit B, each unit will detect an IP address conflict and shut down the offending Ethernet port.

Try setting the IP address of unit B to 192.168.0.2, enable DHCP on unit A, Disable DHCP on unit B and make sure your starting DHCP address on unit A begins at 192.168.0.3 so it doesn't conflict with the unit B static address.

Let me know how you get on.

Best regards, Simon

[Scott Holtzman]

Sort of.  You could have multiple DHCP servers on the network with different IP ranges being handed out.  Pretty common on larger networks.

No, that's not accurate.  Larger networks are broken into smaller networks for a number of reasons.  To me a network is a single collision domain for this discussion.  In these large mult segment configurations the switches will use a trunking protocol to isolate the segments from a layer two perspective.  The protocol is IEEE 802.1q  A single DHCP server can answer requests from multiple networks and the router on each segment (usually one router) uses IETF RFC-3046 DHCP relay to forward the DHCP requests from each LAN segment to the central DHCP server.

DHCP protocol straddles layer 2/3 - The offer/request format uses broadcast Ethernet Frames at Layer 2, it hands out IP addresses which are required for Layer 3 communications.

With regards to the OP and topic.

The switches built into routers are of marginal quality compared to a dedicated switch at all.  Certainly they may not be non-blocking (wire speed available across the entire matrix).

A quality switch is managed and non-blocking, supports port prioritization and other features useful for live audio.

In the worst of situation I have seen consumer level routers that the ports are just a hub.

Switches are cheap.  It's not worth the savings for the possible problems.

If you need wireless go with a switch and an discrete access point.



Sent from my To Be Filled By O.E.M. using Tapatalk

[Riley Casey]

Thanks for all the responses, especially the conflicting ones!  Apparently I should have described this deployment a little better.  I have three racks each loaded with multiple UHF-R receivers. More than half the time these racks will go out stand alone but of course on larger show they may be used in combinations.  The intention with installing the switches was to have a plug and play box that any show tech could connect a laptop to and have Wireless workbench find all available units with no reconfiguration of the hardware or the computers' network configuration.  The multiple racks on a single show scenario was that DHCP could be disabled on one or more racks and the one router still configured for DHCP could pass out IPs as needed with the disabled routers acting as switches.  The physical space available in these existing racks doesn't allow for both a switch and a router.  There is no need for wifi capability nor space for antennas. The speed requirement is low, it's all pretty minimalist intentionally. I have tried bumping the base IP of the routers 30 digits apart in hopes that this would eliminate conflicting addresses but that didn't seem to make a difference to the current problem of no access to units connected to the second router/ switch.

[Simon Hutson]

Thanks for all the responses, especially the conflicting ones!  Apparently I should have described this deployment a little better.  I have three racks each loaded with multiple UHF-R receivers. More than half the time these racks will go out stand alone but of course on larger show they may be used in combinations.  The intention with installing the switches was to have a plug and play box that any show tech could connect a laptop to and have Wireless workbench find all available units with no reconfiguration of the hardware or the computers' network configuration.  The multiple racks on a single show scenario was that DHCP could be disabled on one or more racks and the one router still configured for DHCP could pass out IPs as needed with the disabled routers acting as switches.  The physical space available in these existing racks doesn't allow for both a switch and a router.  There is no need for wifi capability nor space for antennas. The speed requirement is low, it's all pretty minimalist intentionally. I have tried bumping the base IP of the routers 30 digits apart in hopes that this would eliminate conflicting addresses but that didn't seem to make a difference to the current problem of no access to units connected to the second router/ switch.

OK, understood. You could have DHCP enabled on each individual router so long as the base addresses of each router are unique, the DHCP address ranges on each router don't overlap with each other or the base addresses, and all addresses are on the same subnet. That should enable you to run the racks standalone or in combination without any configuration changes (I think).

Best regards, Simon

[frank kayser]

Thanks for all the responses, especially the conflicting ones!  Apparently I should have described this deployment a little better.  I have three racks each loaded with multiple UHF-R receivers. More than half the time these racks will go out stand alone but of course on larger show they may be used in combinations.  The intention with installing the switches was to have a plug and play box that any show tech could connect a laptop to and have Wireless workbench find all available units with no reconfiguration of the hardware or the computers' network configuration.  The multiple racks on a single show scenario was that DHCP could be disabled on one or more racks and the one router still configured for DHCP could pass out IPs as needed with the disabled routers acting as switches.  The physical space available in these existing racks doesn't allow for both a switch and a router.  There is no need for wifi capability nor space for antennas. The speed requirement is low, it's all pretty minimalist intentionally. I have tried bumping the base IP of the routers 30 digits apart in hopes that this would eliminate conflicting addresses but that didn't seem to make a difference to the current problem of no access to units connected to the second router/ switch.

You really have three separate networks running there. You want to manually combine them at times (by substituting a switch for a router - functionally), and run it as three nets at other times.  Why not combine the tree networks with a bridge - they can still function as the three nets, but can be addressed through the single cable without reconfiguring the routers each time.
frank

[Scott Holtzman]

Thanks for all the responses, especially the conflicting ones!  Apparently I should have described this deployment a little better.  I have three racks each loaded with multiple UHF-R receivers. More than half the time these racks will go out stand alone but of course on larger show they may be used in combinations.  The intention with installing the switches was to have a plug and play box that any show tech could connect a laptop to and have Wireless workbench find all available units with no reconfiguration of the hardware or the computers' network configuration.  The multiple racks on a single show scenario was that DHCP could be disabled on one or more racks and the one router still configured for DHCP could pass out IPs as needed with the disabled routers acting as switches.  The physical space available in these existing racks doesn't allow for both a switch and a router.  There is no need for wifi capability nor space for antennas. The speed requirement is low, it's all pretty minimalist intentionally. I have tried bumping the base IP of the routers 30 digits apart in hopes that this would eliminate conflicting addresses but that didn't seem to make a difference to the current problem of no access to units connected to the second router/ switch.

Ok got it.

Here is what you want to do.

In the three racks on the inside (LAN or trusted side of the router/switch your network is connected to utilize the following IP networks with DHCP.

Rack 1 - 10.10.1.0/24 - GW 10.10.1.1 Subnet Mask 255.255.255.0 DHCP range 10.10.1.20-99
Rack 2 - 10.10.2.0/24 - GW 10.10.2.1 Subnet Mask 255.255.255.0 DHCP range 10.10.2.20-99
Rack 3-  10.10.3.0/24 - GW 10.10.3.1 Subnet Mask 255.255.255.0 DHCP range 10.10.3.20-99

On the WAN side number as follows -

Rack 1 - Interface IP 10.1.1.1 Subnet Mask 255.255.255.128 GW 10.1.1.126
Rack 2 - Interface IP 10.1.1.2 Subnet Mask 255.255.255.128 GW 10.1.1.126
Rack 3 - Interface IP 10.1.1.3 Subnet Mask 255.255.255.128 GW 10.1.1.126

In the rack most likely to be deployed on mult-rack jobs get a small enterprise router and on one interface put 10.1.1.126 Subnet Mask 255.255.255.128

Now on that router you need 3 routes

ip route 10.10.1.0 255.255.255.0 10.1.1.1
ip route 10.10.2.0 255.255.255.0 10.1.1.2
ip route 10.10.3.0 255 255.255.0 10.1.1.3

That router will now be a traffic cop and direct traffic between the 3 networks and devices can be plugged into the switch in all three cabinets.

I recommend a Cisco 17xx router.  It will survive a nuclear bomb and can be had on the used market for less than $50.00






Sent from my To Be Filled By O.E.M. using Tapatalk

[Chris Johnson [UK]]

I suspect the problem here is that you are involving the WAN port.

Technically speaking, the 'router' you bought is probably actually a 2 port router with a 5 port switch bolted on the side. Meaning that the routing happens between the WAN port, and an internal LAN port, and then the LAN port is connected to a 5-port switch chip that drives the 4 'LAN' ports on the back.

By default, devices on the LAN side of the router won't be able to receive DHCP addresses from a router on the WAN side. But that behaviour may be able to be changed.

The short answer is, though, why not just use a switch?

[Ade Stuart]

The short answer is, though, why not just use a switch?

+1

[Jeff Hague]

I suspect the problem here is that you are involving the WAN port.

Technically speaking, the 'router' you bought is probably actually a 2 port router with a 5 port switch bolted on the side. Meaning that the routing happens between the WAN port, and an internal LAN port, and then the LAN port is connected to a 5-port switch chip that drives the 4 'LAN' ports on the back.

By default, devices on the LAN side of the router won't be able to receive DHCP addresses from a router on the WAN side. But that behaviour may be able to be changed.

The short answer is, though, why not just use a switch?

Exactly!

What the OP describes will work provided that he disable DHCP on all but 1 of the routers, set non conflicting static addresses on each router AND connect everything to LAN ports - do not use the WAN ports at all.
If router A is the DHCP server and is connected to router B via a WAN port (WAN port on both routers or WAN on 1 and LAN on the other - doesn't matter), clients on router B will not get addresses from DHCP. DHCP discover packets are broadcasts and routers block broadcasts. The WAN port on these consumer wifi devices IS the router. If the 2 routers are connected via LAN ports only, broadcasts pass and DHCP will work.

[Mitch Miller]

Short reply is because he has multiple IP networks he's trying to combine at certain times with minim reconfiguration.

Holzman's reply above would be the best zero configuration design, IMO.

If everything was using static IP addresses in a single subnet, and if the switches (yes, the multi-port section of your router is a switch) have crossover jacks (not all do), one should be able to connect each switch to the other and all the devices could talk with each other. And in this configuration, it wouldn't matter if you had DHCP enabled or not since no one would be using it. But, it would require some planning and sticking with the plan to make each network function as well on its own, as well as when combined (mostly so there'd be no IP address clashes).

[ProSoundWeb Community]