Windows 2000 WLAN routing help please

[Nick Le Lievre]

I`m thinking of setting up a WLAN using wireless router providing broadband
via attached ADSL modem;

So Wireless router will be 192.168.0.1 for both dns & gateway for all
wireless PC - windows 2000 server with wireless card ip 192.168.0.2 dns/gw
192.168.0.1 for internet access thru wireless router

2nd cable based network card 192.168.1.1 in server with static routes setup
192.168.1.1 > 192.168.0.2 and 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.1.1 with another pc
connected via crosswired cable 192.168.1.2 its gateway(s) are 192.168.1.1 &
192.168.0.1 for Internet access thru win2000 servers wireless lan card

Wireless notebook out of range of wireless router but in range of Windows
2000 server 192.168.0.3 can ping 192.168.0.2 which in turn can ping
192.168.0.1 but 192.168.0.1 and 192.168.0.3 can`t ping each other

Is it possible I could get Win2000 server to route from 192.168.0.3 to
192.168.0.1 via 192.168.0.2 in this configuration ?

 

[Nick Le Lievre]

I`m thinking of setting up a WLAN using wireless router providing broadband
via attached ADSL modem;

So Wireless router will be 192.168.0.1 for both dns & gateway for all
wireless PC - windows 2000 server with wireless card ip 192.168.0.2 dns/gw
192.168.0.1 for internet access thru wireless router

2nd cable based network card 192.168.1.1 in server with static routes setup
192.168.1.1 > 192.168.0.2 and 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.1.1 with another pc
connected via crosswired cable 192.168.1.2 its gateway(s) are 192.168.1.1 &
192.168.0.1 for Internet access thru win2000 servers wireless lan card

Wireless notebook out of range of wireless router but in range of Windows
2000 server 192.168.0.3 can ping 192.168.0.2 which in turn can ping
192.168.0.1 but 192.168.0.1 and 192.168.0.3 can`t ping each other

Is it possible I could get Win2000 server to route from 192.168.0.3 to
192.168.0.1 via 192.168.0.2 in this configuration ?

I know I could do it if I had a 2nd wireless card in the server then I could
assign 192.168.1.3 to it and set static routes from 192.168.1.3 >
192.168.0.2 and 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.1.3 and 192.168.1.3 > 192.168.1.1 &
192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.3

Then my notebook could have perhaps DHCP from the wireless router and an
alternate static configuration of 192.168.1.4 I`d have to exclude
192.168.0.1 & 192.168.0.2 from the routers DHCP assignment

 

[Bill Grant]

You seem to have an odd idea about how IP routing works and an
obsession with static routes.

What is wrong with actually putting the machines in different subnets
and routing between them? One subnet (192.168.0.0) for machines which
directly connect to the Internet router and a different subnet for those
which cannot, routing through the W2k router?

It is not a great idea to load up individual machines with static
routes. It is a better idea to use default routing within segments and let
the routers do the routing.

 

[Nick Le Lievre]

You seem to have an odd idea about how IP routing works and an
obsession with static routes.

What is wrong with actually putting the machines in different subnets
and routing between them? One subnet (192.168.0.0) for machines which
directly connect to the Internet router and a different subnet for those
which cannot, routing through the W2k router?

It is not a great idea to load up individual machines with static
routes. It is a better idea to use default routing within segments and let
the routers do the routing.

No I don`t think you understand what I`m comtemplating - the only machine
with static routes is the w2k server because it will have 3 network cards (2
wireless & 1 UTP based network card) each will be in a different subnet.

Both of the wireless cards will be in range of the wireless Internet router
(192.168.0.1) but only 1 of them will be in the same subnet (192.168.0.2)
the other will be in a different subnet (192.168.1.1) so that other wireless
cards not in range of the wireless Internet router can have Wireless
Internet access thru the wireless w2k server by giving them ips
(192.168.1.x) in the same subnet as the 2nd wireless card in the server
which is not in the same subnet as the Internet accessible wireless card.

As w2k server does not support bridging I have to setup static routes to
join the 2 physical wireless networks (192.168.0.x & 192.168.1.x) it will
also have a UTP based network card for a crosswired 100mbit connection to
another PC with a UTP network card. This network card will again be on a 3rd
subnet (192.168.2.1) and attached PC will be 192.168.2.2 I will again have
to setup static routes on the w2k server to join this 3rd physical network
to the wireless ones.

So in essence I want the w2k server to act as a wireless access point. Does
it make more sense now ?

 

[Bill Grant]

But you still do not need static routes on the W2k router. W2k will
route between all subnets which have an interface on the server. The only
place you might need a static route is at your existing Internet router.
Because it only has an interface in 192.168.0 , it will not know how to
reach the other two subnets. So it would need extra routing info to get
traffic for 192.168.1 and 192.168.2 to the W2k router, which could then
deliver them. You could do this with static routes or a routing protocol
like RIP. But you can't do it by adding static routes to the W2k router.

To summarise, the problem is not getting the traffic to the Internet
router. Default routing can do that. The problem is getting the replies back
to the internal subnets. (The only way to do it without added routing info
is to use subnetting. If the first subnet was 192.168.0.0/16, all 192.168
traffic would come to the W2k router, and it could then split off
192.168.1.0/24 and 192.168.2.0/24 .)


Internet
|
public IP
router
192.168.0.1
|
192.168.0.2 dg 192.168.0.1
|
W2k router
|
---------------------------
| |
192.168.1.1 dg blank 192.168.2.1 dg blank
| |
192.168.1.x dg 192.168.1.1 192.168.2.x dg 192.168.2.1

The .1 and .2 can route to each other because they both have the W2k
router as their default gateway. They can also get to the Internet router,
because the W2K router's default gateway is the Internet router. The added
routing info on the Internet router allows it to forward all traffic for the
..1 and .2 subnets to the W2k router, which can deliver them directly
(because it has an interface in both subnets).

 

[Nick Le Lievre]

Thats assuming I want to be able to reach the .1 and .2 subnets when in
range of the Internet wireless router - Internet connectivity will be the
main use in that area - connectivity to the other subnets will be provided
by the w2k router- as an after thought setting up routes on the Internet
router to the .1 & .2 subnets will be achieved.

I can see what your getting at - in order for NAT running on the Internet
router to deliver replies to the .1 & .2 subnets it will need to know how to
get there - I thought that w2k server would handle this as it has static
routes 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.1.1 & 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.2.1 so I thought
the Internet router would ask 192.168.0.2 how to get to 192.168.1.1 and then
it would be delivered.

 

[Nick Le Lievre]

Just had a look at the user manual for the adaptec wireless router I was
looking at getting
http://graphics.adaptec.com/pdfs/user_guides/awn_8084_ug.pdf in the LAN
settings there is no option to specify a default gateway...

I wonder if a request comes to it from a the .1 or .2 subnet via 192.168.0.2
(w2k server) will it send it back to the subnet it came from because as far
as the wireless router is concerned the request came from 192.168.0.2

It is the job of the w2k server to send it back to the subnet it routed it
from via the static routes I have provided - the internet wireless router
will be blind to this operation I would think.

Sorry for so many posts but I don`t think I`ll need to add anything to the
wireless router unless I wanted to connect from a wireless PC eg 192.168.0.3
to 192.168.2.1 thru the wireless router only.

 

[Nick Le Lievre]

It is the job of the w2k server to send it back to the subnet it routed it
from via the static routes I have provided - the internet wireless router
will be blind to this operation I would think.

Sorry for so many posts but I don`t think I`ll need to add anything to the
wireless router unless I wanted to connect from a wireless PC eg 192.168.0.3
to 192.168.2.1 thru the wireless router only.

The 192.168.1.x & 192.168.2.x subnets will how to get to the 192.168.0.1
becuase of the interfaces in w2k server joined by static routes as far as
w2k server is concerned 192.168.0.1 is the next hop it can`t see any further
then that.

They won`t be able to access a PC in the wireless routers own subnet eg
192.168.0.3 becuase the wireless router won`t be doing any LAN routing or
bridging as far as its concerned 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.3 is an adhoc
network and 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2 is another adhoc network.

 

[Nick Le Lievre]

The 192.168.1.x & 192.168.2.x subnets will how to get to the 192.168.0.1
becuase of the interfaces in w2k server joined by static routes as far as
w2k server is concerned 192.168.0.1 is the next hop it can`t see any further
then that.

They won`t be able to access a PC in the wireless routers own subnet eg
192.168.0.3 becuase the wireless router won`t be doing any LAN routing or
bridging as far as its concerned 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.3 is an adhoc
network and 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2 is another adhoc network.

It might be better if I got a wireless bridge instead of sticking a 2nd
wireless card in w2k server (2 wireless cards so close together is a waste)
therefore anything in the 192.168.0.x subnet would be able to access
anything in the other subnets via the w2k router as gateway and the Internet
via gateway 192.168.0.1 it would also allow 192.168.2.1 subnet access to
anything else in the 192.168.0.x subnet via that static route 192.168.2.1 >
192.168.0.2 and the Internet via 192.168.0.1.

For a few pounds more I would have the range of the wireless router + a
wireless bridge in a central location then wireless w2k server anything near
any of them would have internet access + access to any subnet.