[SOLVED] Help on defining static routes.

[jcortes63]

 

[bill001g]

Do you actually have a real router or are you using consumer "gateway". Because you used the term "wan" makes me suspect you have NAT running on these devices. When you run NAT the subnet behind the router do not actually exist externally.

All IP addresses on the first router only have the external IP of 192.168.1,2. There is no way to individually access these devices.

If this was a actual router it is pretty simple you put in 2 static routers on the 192.168.1.0 pointing to the other routers and let the other routers use just a default. It is trivial to make work....which makes me pretty sure you are not using a actual router.

 

[jcortes63]

192.168.1.0 is a TP-Link Wireless N Router WR841N
192.168.2.0 is a Wireless-N Broadband Router WRT160Nv3
192.168.3.0 is a TP-Link Wireless N Router WR841N

I already included in 192.168.1.0 the following static routes
Dest . 192.168.2.0 mask 255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.1.2
Dest 192.168.3.0 mask 255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.1.3
and It doesn't work going down.

Trying to go from 192.168.2.0 to 192.168.3.0 I included in 192.168.2.0
Dest 192.168.3.0 mask 255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.1.1

Trying to go from 192.168.3.0 to 192.168.2.0 Included in 192.168.3.0
dest 192.168.2.0 mask 255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.1.1

 

[jcortes63]

192.168.1.0 is the access to internet. But I want to be able to connect all the sub networks, inside the house.

 

[bill001g]

Again those are not actual routers. They have no ability to run mulitple subnets. They are restricted to having 1 WAN IP and translating that to a single LAN subnet. The are devices sold to the consumer market where the marketing guys get away with calling a device a router that does not have the critical function of actually "routing" traffic between subnets. Those are gateways not routers.

You either need to get a device that is more designed for a business environment or maybe those devices you can load third part firmware like dd-wrt that gives them the abilities of actual router.

 

[SamirD]

Turn dhcp off on 192.168.2.0 and 192.168.3.0, assign a static IP to the router of 192.168.1.2 and 192.168.1.3, remove the cables from the wan of 192.168.2.0 and 192.168.3.0 and put them in the lan. Done.

 

[bill001g]

Turn dhcp off on 192.168.2.0 and 192.168.3.0, assign a static IP to the router of 192.168.1.2 and 192.168.1.3, remove the cables from the wan of 192.168.2.0 and 192.168.3.0 and put them in the lan. Done.

Not how it would work. The device needs both 192.168.2.1 and 192.168.1.2. if it only has 192.168.1.2 the traffic might get there but then it can't be passed to the end device on the 192.168.2.0 network because there is no interface. It would need 2 different lan interfaces one on each network......that again is what makes a real router a router.

 

[jcortes63]

that's is the configuration I had, but I was trying to totally isolate the different networs since one section will be dedicated to security cams, other for games, and so on. And I didn't want to put the control in only one router, seems to be I am going to need real routers as you say.

Any way I don't understand why this routers has the option for advance routing -> static routes if they don't work !!!

 

[bill001g]

They have a very narrow use. If you have a second actual router you can use the consumer gateway to connect to that routers network. It still extremely limited because traffic coming back from the other router in the other subnet can not use the internet gateway function because it only will run the NAT on the single lan subnet. It will just allow basic communications between the 2 lans.

Not sure there are many other useless features they put on router. Things like setting DSCP markings. These are not used on the internet only on internal networks and nobody would use a consumer gateway on a internal network.

I really think this is to get this list of features as long as possible for people that always think bigger number is better.

You can look at ubiquiti edge routers they are pretty inexpensive and you can use your current devices as AP to provide the wifi so you don't have to rebuy wifi radios.

You also have to remember that your average consumer is going to be what is this subnet things you are talking about.

 

[Ralston18]

How many devices are in the network?

While it may be a bit more satisfying if all the games are one "router" and all the security cameras on another router etc., I would forego all that for the sake of simplicity.

It has already gotten complicated just " on paper".

Just one router providing DHCP IP addresses for all network devices. Devices needing/requiring Static IP's could simply be given some consecutive range of IP addresses excluded from the DHCP range allowed to the DHCP router.

And you will not have to spend money on another router.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[SamirD]

Not how it would work. The device needs both 192.168.2.1 and 192.168.1.2. if it only has 192.168.1.2 the traffic might get there but then it can't be passed to the end device on the 192.168.2.0 network because there is no interface. It would need 2 different lan interfaces one on each network......that again is what makes a real router a router.

So what I was telling the OP to do was to flatten the network and use the other routers as just switches.

 

[SamirD]

that's is the configuration I had, but I was trying to totally isolate the different networs since one section will be dedicated to security cams, other for games, and so on. And I didn't want to put the control in only one router, seems to be I am going to need real routers as you say.

There are ways to do this using subnetting, but most of the times it is done using vlans or physical lans (if you want air-gapped security).