that will work against everyone except the most determined hackers. there are always ways to get your MAC, even if you think its fool proof. spoofing them are not hard either, there are some cards out there commercially that include that feature now.
thats why i say to log EVERYTHING, because then when your feet are to the fire, at least you can prove it wasn't you.
okay.. this is for all the networking guru's
Never say never.llwatson wrote:You have now passed Lesson 1 of Networking 101. "Never place more than 1 router in the same subnet."
We used many pairing configs that had two routers on the same subnet. It all depends on need.
In other words, use only as many as you /need/.
Kind Regards, from a time when I actually cared about this stuff.
A long time ago.
Tom
-
jhutto
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:27 am
- Location: Dripping Springs
I might take a crack at this.
Well, It would certainly be a best practice to use 1 router. There is obviously already a cable connecting the two, so keep the wireless router. Unplug the other and plug it into the DSL "modem". I wouldnt use DMZ just forward the ports you need to the static IP addess of the server. As far as connecting to shares accross the internet, you should just setup a VPN connection on that 2003 server you have. That will solve any port issues you have with your ISP.
Otherwise if you want to to be silly and keep both you can put them on different subnets to make things more logical. This would be the second best option. Make one on 192.168.1.x, and the other 192.168.24.x for example. It would make more since to assign a static IP to the second router and disable DHCP on the first. Just forward the needed ports accross both routers to the server.
Accullay the way it is setup (as described) would really not be an issue, as there are no machines connected to the first router, and therefore no IP-address conflicts. the only thing is if your second router is obtaining an IP via DHCP, your DMZ setting will be useless after it renews it's IP addresss. . It is a bit silly to have it configured the way you do however.
I do not believe your hardware configuration has anything to do with your connectivity issues.
Hope this helps.
Otherwise if you want to to be silly and keep both you can put them on different subnets to make things more logical. This would be the second best option. Make one on 192.168.1.x, and the other 192.168.24.x for example. It would make more since to assign a static IP to the second router and disable DHCP on the first. Just forward the needed ports accross both routers to the server.
Accullay the way it is setup (as described) would really not be an issue, as there are no machines connected to the first router, and therefore no IP-address conflicts. the only thing is if your second router is obtaining an IP via DHCP, your DMZ setting will be useless after it renews it's IP addresss. . It is a bit silly to have it configured the way you do however.
I do not believe your hardware configuration has anything to do with your connectivity issues.
Hope this helps.
-
HerbM
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 569
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:55 pm
- Location: Austin, TX
- Contact:
Sorry folks I just joined and would have been happy to help with this.
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with two routers in a network;
The Internet is a "just a network" and it has millions -- really.
It usually does require a bit of configuration for the "router in the middle" because this is really what I teach my students is the "three router problem"*.
Why 3? Because the ISP's router counts as on, when you have two more you have a total of 3 and one of them is "in the middle". That is the router that needs a STATIC route added to find the (sub)net behind the "edge router".
Static routes will solve the multiple router problem up to a handful or maybe a dozen routers and then Dynamic Routing becomes a near requirement just for sanity.
After you get routing to work there is also the issue of "filtering" (e.g., firewalls) but that may be the case with (true) switches and all sorts of devices.
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with two routers in a network;
The Internet is a "just a network" and it has millions -- really.
It usually does require a bit of configuration for the "router in the middle" because this is really what I teach my students is the "three router problem"*.
Why 3? Because the ISP's router counts as on, when you have two more you have a total of 3 and one of them is "in the middle". That is the router that needs a STATIC route added to find the (sub)net behind the "edge router".
Static routes will solve the multiple router problem up to a handful or maybe a dozen routers and then Dynamic Routing becomes a near requirement just for sanity.
After you get routing to work there is also the issue of "filtering" (e.g., firewalls) but that may be the case with (true) switches and all sorts of devices.
HerbM
