A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbanterBanter

Welcome to BroadbanterBanter.

You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today.

Go Back   Home » BroadbanterBanter forum » Newsgroup Discussions » uk.comp.home-networking (UK home networking)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.comp.home-networking (UK home networking) (uk.comp.home-networking) Discussion of all aspects of computer networking in the home, regardless of the platforms, software, topologies and protocols used. Examples of topics include recommendations for hardware or suppliers (e.g. NICs and cabling), protocols, servers, and specific network software. Advertising is not allowed.

One of those stupid problems......



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 28th 05, 02:50 PM posted to uk.comp.home-networking
Mike Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default One of those stupid problems......

Setup:
*BSD machine as router with 192.168.0/24, 192.168.1/24 and cable modem
interfaces. No problems talking between machines on the two subnets or
out to the wide world.

F5D7130 WAP connected as 192.168.1.254.

When I installed this, I set the netmask for the WAP as 255.255.0.0 and
used a proxy arp demon on the gateway so the WAP could access the other
subnet. It's worked well enough. Today, having forgotten why I did
this and deciding to tidy up, I stopped the proxy arp, and set the WAP
netmask to 255.255.255.0. The WAP promptly ceased to respond to
anything on the 192.168.0 subnet; tcpdump showed icmp pings headed out
to the WAP, nothing coming back. Nothing would coax it into responding.
Looks like there's a fault with the subnetting on the WAP.

I've had to restore the original settings, and all is now working. My
suspicion is that it "knows" 192.168 "should be" a /16 subnet and
behaves accordingly, but I can't be sure. Does anyone know of any
problems with Belkin's firmware in this regard?

--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)
  #2  
Old June 28th 05, 03:13 PM posted to uk.comp.home-networking
Alex Fraser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 553
Default One of those stupid problems......

"Mike Scott" wrote in message
...
Setup:
*BSD machine as router with 192.168.0/24, 192.168.1/24 and cable modem
interfaces. No problems talking between machines on the two subnets or
out to the wide world.

F5D7130 WAP connected as 192.168.1.254.

When I installed this, I set the netmask for the WAP as 255.255.0.0 and
used a proxy arp demon on the gateway so the WAP could access the other
subnet. It's worked well enough. Today, having forgotten why I did
this and deciding to tidy up, I stopped the proxy arp, and set the WAP
netmask to 255.255.255.0. The WAP promptly ceased to respond to
anything on the 192.168.0 subnet; tcpdump showed icmp pings headed out
to the WAP, nothing coming back. Nothing would coax it into responding.


The AP needs to know the route for 192.168.0.0/24. You can probably
configure the 192.168.1.0/24 address of the router as the AP's default
gateway.

Alex


  #3  
Old June 28th 05, 03:34 PM posted to uk.comp.home-networking
Alex Fraser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 553
Default One of those stupid problems......

"Alex Fraser" wrote in message
...
"Mike Scott" wrote in message
...
Setup:
*BSD machine as router with 192.168.0/24, 192.168.1/24 and cable modem
interfaces. No problems talking between machines on the two subnets or
out to the wide world.

F5D7130 WAP connected as 192.168.1.254.

When I installed this, I set the netmask for the WAP as 255.255.0.0 and
used a proxy arp demon on the gateway so the WAP could access the other
subnet. It's worked well enough. Today, having forgotten why I did
this and deciding to tidy up, I stopped the proxy arp, and set the WAP
netmask to 255.255.255.0. The WAP promptly ceased to respond to
anything on the 192.168.0 subnet; tcpdump showed icmp pings headed out
to the WAP, nothing coming back. Nothing would coax it into responding.


The AP needs to know the route for 192.168.0.0/24. You can probably
configure the 192.168.1.0/24 address of the router as the AP's default
gateway.


Hmm, reading the manual, it doesn't seem like you can set up any routing at
all; the AP can only talk to the attached network.

An alternative to proxy ARP would be to NAT traffic from 192.168.0.0/24
destined for the AP (just the AP, not the whole network). I know how to do
this with Linux but have no networking experience with any BSD. In any case,
whether this is any better than proxy ARP is debatable.

Alex


  #4  
Old June 28th 05, 04:36 PM posted to uk.comp.home-networking
Mike Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default One of those stupid problems......

Alex Fraser wrote:
....
The AP needs to know the route for 192.168.0.0/24. You can probably
configure the 192.168.1.0/24 address of the router as the AP's default
gateway.



Hmm, reading the manual, it doesn't seem like you can set up any routing at
all; the AP can only talk to the attached network.


Ah, now that jogs my memory - thanks! Knew I was missing something
vital. I remember now that I expected to see a default gateway when I
installed the unit. I didn't, so stuck in the poxy arp as a
work-around. Interesting that the bridge (F5D7330) can have a gateway
specified.

Put it down to rotten firmware design then - I guess that's the last
Belkin unit I buy :-)


An alternative to proxy ARP would be to NAT traffic from 192.168.0.0/24
destined for the AP (just the AP, not the whole network). I know how to do
this with Linux but have no networking experience with any BSD. In any case,
whether this is any better than proxy ARP is debatable.


Not sure about that - I'll leave the proxy arp, as it seems to work. I
really must document things better!!

Thanks again for jogging the old brain-box.

--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)
 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stupid questions...... Dave uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 28 November 24th 04 03:15 AM
Probably a stupid question :-s Mr Wizzo uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 3 June 21st 04 05:50 PM
I'm being stupid (linux) Ian Stirling uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 7 November 15th 03 03:05 PM
Some - probably stupid - questions Shaun McCann uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 23 July 31st 03 01:37 AM
Stupid question Graham uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 1 July 9th 03 04:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2019 BroadbanterBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.