Cascading routers: accessing secondary router's clients from first router?
I have a setup using two routers, say Router A and Router B, that looks something like this:
Quite simply, I am cascading Router A and Router B, Router B's WAN port being connected to Router A's LAN port. Router B is a LAN client on Router A with IP 192.168.1.201.
The current situation is that all clients on Router B can access Router A without a problem (for example, 192.168.0.4
can access 192.168.1.3
).
I know that a static route must be set up on Router A to route any requests to subnet 192.168.0.*
to the secondary router (192.168.1.201
). I have done this:
However, for some reason, it is still impossible to reach Router B's LAN from Router A. This is the result of a ping:
jo@axch ~ % ping 192.168.0.1
PING 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1): 56 data bytes
Request timeout for icmp_seq 0
92 bytes from 192.168.1.1: Redirect Host(New addr: 192.168.1.201)
Vr HL TOS Len ID Flg off TTL Pro cks Src Dst
4 5 00 0054 779c 0 0000 3f 01 8155 192.168.1.102 192.168.0.1
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1
92 bytes from 192.168.1.1: Redirect Host(New addr: 192.168.1.201)
Vr HL TOS Len ID Flg off TTL Pro cks Src Dst
4 5 00 0054 356e 0 0000 3f 01 c383 192.168.1.102 192.168.0.1
^C
--- 192.168.0.1 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss
At this point, I am at a loss on how to perform this very simple task. If it helps, I have noticed that Router B seems to be unreachable in Router A (as in, trying to ping 192.168.1.201
fails). I am not sure how that is since Router B clearly reports that its LAN address is 192.168.1.201
.
networking lan subnet static-routes
add a comment |
I have a setup using two routers, say Router A and Router B, that looks something like this:
Quite simply, I am cascading Router A and Router B, Router B's WAN port being connected to Router A's LAN port. Router B is a LAN client on Router A with IP 192.168.1.201.
The current situation is that all clients on Router B can access Router A without a problem (for example, 192.168.0.4
can access 192.168.1.3
).
I know that a static route must be set up on Router A to route any requests to subnet 192.168.0.*
to the secondary router (192.168.1.201
). I have done this:
However, for some reason, it is still impossible to reach Router B's LAN from Router A. This is the result of a ping:
jo@axch ~ % ping 192.168.0.1
PING 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1): 56 data bytes
Request timeout for icmp_seq 0
92 bytes from 192.168.1.1: Redirect Host(New addr: 192.168.1.201)
Vr HL TOS Len ID Flg off TTL Pro cks Src Dst
4 5 00 0054 779c 0 0000 3f 01 8155 192.168.1.102 192.168.0.1
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1
92 bytes from 192.168.1.1: Redirect Host(New addr: 192.168.1.201)
Vr HL TOS Len ID Flg off TTL Pro cks Src Dst
4 5 00 0054 356e 0 0000 3f 01 c383 192.168.1.102 192.168.0.1
^C
--- 192.168.0.1 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss
At this point, I am at a loss on how to perform this very simple task. If it helps, I have noticed that Router B seems to be unreachable in Router A (as in, trying to ping 192.168.1.201
fails). I am not sure how that is since Router B clearly reports that its LAN address is 192.168.1.201
.
networking lan subnet static-routes
add a comment |
I have a setup using two routers, say Router A and Router B, that looks something like this:
Quite simply, I am cascading Router A and Router B, Router B's WAN port being connected to Router A's LAN port. Router B is a LAN client on Router A with IP 192.168.1.201.
The current situation is that all clients on Router B can access Router A without a problem (for example, 192.168.0.4
can access 192.168.1.3
).
I know that a static route must be set up on Router A to route any requests to subnet 192.168.0.*
to the secondary router (192.168.1.201
). I have done this:
However, for some reason, it is still impossible to reach Router B's LAN from Router A. This is the result of a ping:
jo@axch ~ % ping 192.168.0.1
PING 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1): 56 data bytes
Request timeout for icmp_seq 0
92 bytes from 192.168.1.1: Redirect Host(New addr: 192.168.1.201)
Vr HL TOS Len ID Flg off TTL Pro cks Src Dst
4 5 00 0054 779c 0 0000 3f 01 8155 192.168.1.102 192.168.0.1
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1
92 bytes from 192.168.1.1: Redirect Host(New addr: 192.168.1.201)
Vr HL TOS Len ID Flg off TTL Pro cks Src Dst
4 5 00 0054 356e 0 0000 3f 01 c383 192.168.1.102 192.168.0.1
^C
--- 192.168.0.1 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss
At this point, I am at a loss on how to perform this very simple task. If it helps, I have noticed that Router B seems to be unreachable in Router A (as in, trying to ping 192.168.1.201
fails). I am not sure how that is since Router B clearly reports that its LAN address is 192.168.1.201
.
networking lan subnet static-routes
I have a setup using two routers, say Router A and Router B, that looks something like this:
Quite simply, I am cascading Router A and Router B, Router B's WAN port being connected to Router A's LAN port. Router B is a LAN client on Router A with IP 192.168.1.201.
The current situation is that all clients on Router B can access Router A without a problem (for example, 192.168.0.4
can access 192.168.1.3
).
I know that a static route must be set up on Router A to route any requests to subnet 192.168.0.*
to the secondary router (192.168.1.201
). I have done this:
However, for some reason, it is still impossible to reach Router B's LAN from Router A. This is the result of a ping:
jo@axch ~ % ping 192.168.0.1
PING 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1): 56 data bytes
Request timeout for icmp_seq 0
92 bytes from 192.168.1.1: Redirect Host(New addr: 192.168.1.201)
Vr HL TOS Len ID Flg off TTL Pro cks Src Dst
4 5 00 0054 779c 0 0000 3f 01 8155 192.168.1.102 192.168.0.1
Request timeout for icmp_seq 1
92 bytes from 192.168.1.1: Redirect Host(New addr: 192.168.1.201)
Vr HL TOS Len ID Flg off TTL Pro cks Src Dst
4 5 00 0054 356e 0 0000 3f 01 c383 192.168.1.102 192.168.0.1
^C
--- 192.168.0.1 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss
At this point, I am at a loss on how to perform this very simple task. If it helps, I have noticed that Router B seems to be unreachable in Router A (as in, trying to ping 192.168.1.201
fails). I am not sure how that is since Router B clearly reports that its LAN address is 192.168.1.201
.
networking lan subnet static-routes
networking lan subnet static-routes
asked Sep 16 '17 at 13:52
Joseph A.Joseph A.
9541819
9541819
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Sounds like you know a bit about networking. Good job on the explanation.
However, you have failed to consider that the router is a security barrier also using NAT and possibly a firewall.
For the same reason devices on the internet can't access Router A clients, devices in front of Router B can't access Router B clients.
Specifically, the problem is NAT. We could get in to some gory details about how advanced routers don't actually need to NAT and NAT rules can be adjusted. But, I'm assuming these are just home routers with limited options.
Therefore, your only option is probably to turn on port forwarding so that you can access a specific port on a specific machine on the B side from the "dark side" also know as Router A clients. :)
In addition, Router B probably has an option to drop or ignore PING (ICMP packets) on its WAN interface. Therefore you cannot ping it from Router A.
I'm sure you have your reasons for this setup, but it sounds like a simple switch would be better utilized in place of Router B. You can also disable DHCP on Router B, plug the cable in Router B's WAN port into a LAN port on Router B and it too will be a simple switch. You might also want to reprogram Router B to have a LAN IP that is on 192.168.1.x so that you can still reach the configuration interface after doing this.
Thank you! I successfully set up port forwarding on Router B to redirect requests accordingly. Although I was unable to find any "ping drop" switch (and the firewall was off), I was able to go about my business with the port forward method. The reason I have two routers is simply to expand the Wi-Fi field, and I needed to access the second router's clients from the first. Again, thank you for the very detailed answer!
– Joseph A.
Sep 17 '17 at 3:49
add a comment |
Your clients will all be accessible if you set up both routers on the same subnet (LAN to LAN cascading). You can then choose to use the same subnet for both routers. example 192.168.0.0-254 or 192.168.1.0-254 NOT BOTH.
Then all your port forwarding will not be necessary. The 2nd router will be an access point, increasing your Wi-Fi range.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1250917%2fcascading-routers-accessing-secondary-routers-clients-from-first-router%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Sounds like you know a bit about networking. Good job on the explanation.
However, you have failed to consider that the router is a security barrier also using NAT and possibly a firewall.
For the same reason devices on the internet can't access Router A clients, devices in front of Router B can't access Router B clients.
Specifically, the problem is NAT. We could get in to some gory details about how advanced routers don't actually need to NAT and NAT rules can be adjusted. But, I'm assuming these are just home routers with limited options.
Therefore, your only option is probably to turn on port forwarding so that you can access a specific port on a specific machine on the B side from the "dark side" also know as Router A clients. :)
In addition, Router B probably has an option to drop or ignore PING (ICMP packets) on its WAN interface. Therefore you cannot ping it from Router A.
I'm sure you have your reasons for this setup, but it sounds like a simple switch would be better utilized in place of Router B. You can also disable DHCP on Router B, plug the cable in Router B's WAN port into a LAN port on Router B and it too will be a simple switch. You might also want to reprogram Router B to have a LAN IP that is on 192.168.1.x so that you can still reach the configuration interface after doing this.
Thank you! I successfully set up port forwarding on Router B to redirect requests accordingly. Although I was unable to find any "ping drop" switch (and the firewall was off), I was able to go about my business with the port forward method. The reason I have two routers is simply to expand the Wi-Fi field, and I needed to access the second router's clients from the first. Again, thank you for the very detailed answer!
– Joseph A.
Sep 17 '17 at 3:49
add a comment |
Sounds like you know a bit about networking. Good job on the explanation.
However, you have failed to consider that the router is a security barrier also using NAT and possibly a firewall.
For the same reason devices on the internet can't access Router A clients, devices in front of Router B can't access Router B clients.
Specifically, the problem is NAT. We could get in to some gory details about how advanced routers don't actually need to NAT and NAT rules can be adjusted. But, I'm assuming these are just home routers with limited options.
Therefore, your only option is probably to turn on port forwarding so that you can access a specific port on a specific machine on the B side from the "dark side" also know as Router A clients. :)
In addition, Router B probably has an option to drop or ignore PING (ICMP packets) on its WAN interface. Therefore you cannot ping it from Router A.
I'm sure you have your reasons for this setup, but it sounds like a simple switch would be better utilized in place of Router B. You can also disable DHCP on Router B, plug the cable in Router B's WAN port into a LAN port on Router B and it too will be a simple switch. You might also want to reprogram Router B to have a LAN IP that is on 192.168.1.x so that you can still reach the configuration interface after doing this.
Thank you! I successfully set up port forwarding on Router B to redirect requests accordingly. Although I was unable to find any "ping drop" switch (and the firewall was off), I was able to go about my business with the port forward method. The reason I have two routers is simply to expand the Wi-Fi field, and I needed to access the second router's clients from the first. Again, thank you for the very detailed answer!
– Joseph A.
Sep 17 '17 at 3:49
add a comment |
Sounds like you know a bit about networking. Good job on the explanation.
However, you have failed to consider that the router is a security barrier also using NAT and possibly a firewall.
For the same reason devices on the internet can't access Router A clients, devices in front of Router B can't access Router B clients.
Specifically, the problem is NAT. We could get in to some gory details about how advanced routers don't actually need to NAT and NAT rules can be adjusted. But, I'm assuming these are just home routers with limited options.
Therefore, your only option is probably to turn on port forwarding so that you can access a specific port on a specific machine on the B side from the "dark side" also know as Router A clients. :)
In addition, Router B probably has an option to drop or ignore PING (ICMP packets) on its WAN interface. Therefore you cannot ping it from Router A.
I'm sure you have your reasons for this setup, but it sounds like a simple switch would be better utilized in place of Router B. You can also disable DHCP on Router B, plug the cable in Router B's WAN port into a LAN port on Router B and it too will be a simple switch. You might also want to reprogram Router B to have a LAN IP that is on 192.168.1.x so that you can still reach the configuration interface after doing this.
Sounds like you know a bit about networking. Good job on the explanation.
However, you have failed to consider that the router is a security barrier also using NAT and possibly a firewall.
For the same reason devices on the internet can't access Router A clients, devices in front of Router B can't access Router B clients.
Specifically, the problem is NAT. We could get in to some gory details about how advanced routers don't actually need to NAT and NAT rules can be adjusted. But, I'm assuming these are just home routers with limited options.
Therefore, your only option is probably to turn on port forwarding so that you can access a specific port on a specific machine on the B side from the "dark side" also know as Router A clients. :)
In addition, Router B probably has an option to drop or ignore PING (ICMP packets) on its WAN interface. Therefore you cannot ping it from Router A.
I'm sure you have your reasons for this setup, but it sounds like a simple switch would be better utilized in place of Router B. You can also disable DHCP on Router B, plug the cable in Router B's WAN port into a LAN port on Router B and it too will be a simple switch. You might also want to reprogram Router B to have a LAN IP that is on 192.168.1.x so that you can still reach the configuration interface after doing this.
answered Sep 16 '17 at 15:25
AppleoddityAppleoddity
7,24521124
7,24521124
Thank you! I successfully set up port forwarding on Router B to redirect requests accordingly. Although I was unable to find any "ping drop" switch (and the firewall was off), I was able to go about my business with the port forward method. The reason I have two routers is simply to expand the Wi-Fi field, and I needed to access the second router's clients from the first. Again, thank you for the very detailed answer!
– Joseph A.
Sep 17 '17 at 3:49
add a comment |
Thank you! I successfully set up port forwarding on Router B to redirect requests accordingly. Although I was unable to find any "ping drop" switch (and the firewall was off), I was able to go about my business with the port forward method. The reason I have two routers is simply to expand the Wi-Fi field, and I needed to access the second router's clients from the first. Again, thank you for the very detailed answer!
– Joseph A.
Sep 17 '17 at 3:49
Thank you! I successfully set up port forwarding on Router B to redirect requests accordingly. Although I was unable to find any "ping drop" switch (and the firewall was off), I was able to go about my business with the port forward method. The reason I have two routers is simply to expand the Wi-Fi field, and I needed to access the second router's clients from the first. Again, thank you for the very detailed answer!
– Joseph A.
Sep 17 '17 at 3:49
Thank you! I successfully set up port forwarding on Router B to redirect requests accordingly. Although I was unable to find any "ping drop" switch (and the firewall was off), I was able to go about my business with the port forward method. The reason I have two routers is simply to expand the Wi-Fi field, and I needed to access the second router's clients from the first. Again, thank you for the very detailed answer!
– Joseph A.
Sep 17 '17 at 3:49
add a comment |
Your clients will all be accessible if you set up both routers on the same subnet (LAN to LAN cascading). You can then choose to use the same subnet for both routers. example 192.168.0.0-254 or 192.168.1.0-254 NOT BOTH.
Then all your port forwarding will not be necessary. The 2nd router will be an access point, increasing your Wi-Fi range.
add a comment |
Your clients will all be accessible if you set up both routers on the same subnet (LAN to LAN cascading). You can then choose to use the same subnet for both routers. example 192.168.0.0-254 or 192.168.1.0-254 NOT BOTH.
Then all your port forwarding will not be necessary. The 2nd router will be an access point, increasing your Wi-Fi range.
add a comment |
Your clients will all be accessible if you set up both routers on the same subnet (LAN to LAN cascading). You can then choose to use the same subnet for both routers. example 192.168.0.0-254 or 192.168.1.0-254 NOT BOTH.
Then all your port forwarding will not be necessary. The 2nd router will be an access point, increasing your Wi-Fi range.
Your clients will all be accessible if you set up both routers on the same subnet (LAN to LAN cascading). You can then choose to use the same subnet for both routers. example 192.168.0.0-254 or 192.168.1.0-254 NOT BOTH.
Then all your port forwarding will not be necessary. The 2nd router will be an access point, increasing your Wi-Fi range.
answered Jun 10 '18 at 19:14
RexRex
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1250917%2fcascading-routers-accessing-secondary-routers-clients-from-first-router%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown