2 netgear wifi routers same ssid, 1 wont activate

[wrcsixeight]

I plugged in a new to me but older netgear router and was able to connect to it(named johnson) but it would not get online. The I reset it and I assume it would revert to the Netgear name.

But,
There there is another Netgear wifi router in the same area, hooked to the same modem, and now the little antenna light on the new to me router goes off after a few seconds.

Could the one router see the signal from the other router of the same name and shut off it's wifi?

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: wrcsixeight
Could the one router see the signal from the other router of the same name and shut off it's wifi?


Shouldn't be a problem. Have you tried connecting a network cable to each of them and see if they work? That'll bypass the wireless and make sure the network is setup correct in the first place.

 

[beast3300]

Sometimes if you hold the reset for 30 seconds it will reset the router to everything default.

 

[wrcsixeight]

I just plugged in the ethernet cable to my laptop, and it worked fine. I then plugged it into the router, and used another cable from router to laptop and no go.

It says it is connected but no internet access.

The ethernet cable source is coming from another netgear router, and all the other computers working off that router are working fine, and I am using it's wireless signal to send this.

I did do the modem/ router reboot sequence with the same results

 

[The_Jeff]

Turn off DHCP server on the "slave" (furthest from modem) router.

 

[wrcsixeight]

A more tech savvy person than myself declared the router was worthless.


It lost the battle with a sledgehammer.

 

[Rand]

did you reset the cable modem? if you change the mac address of the connected device (ie switch routers) you have to reboot the modem.
also you have to connect them switch to switch (not wan port)
and disable dhcp on the second router. and make sure they have different ips among other things

edit: not sure what you were doing exactly but it was probably junk.. happens frequently.

 

[OVERKILL]

Are you doing serial NAT? One router into another? If so, that's just a bad idea.

Why are you doing this?

 

[wrcsixeight]

The router closest to the cable modem services a number of apartments, not through wifi, but ethernet cable. One of the LAN outputs goes to my personal wifi router which broadcasts a signal to my office in a distant off grid structure.

My personal router is under a carport inside it's own signal reflective enclosure so the fact that it lasted 3 years is impressive. This system worked fine for years.

The 7 year old router which lost the battle with the sledgehammer yesterday was freezing up when trying to change it's settings.

My first router which failed just worked without changing any of it's settings. I just added a password and besides a few resets, never had any issues

 

[PandaBear]

I think I can guess where the problem is now. You are nesting one router in another and both are on default setting (my assumption since both router is on Netgear ssid). If this is the case, check the subnet the router is on and see if they are identical (i.e. 192.168.1.1 on the gateway), if it is, you need to change one of them. Having identical subnet on both WAN and LAN sides would not work.

Personally I think having serial NAT is fine if you set it up correctly and the intention is to protect the smaller subnet from the bigger subnet. I do that on my network that is shared with another household. We trust each other to share an outbound connection but not enough to access each others' computer.

Your previous router that just work may be from a brand that uses a different default setting (i.e. SMC using a subnet of 192.168.123.254 for gateway).

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
I think I can guess where the problem is now. You are nesting one router in another and both are on default setting (my assumption since both router is on Netgear ssid). If this is the case, check the subnet the router is on and see if they are identical (i.e. 192.168.1.1 on the gateway), if it is, you need to change one of them. Having identical subnet on both WAN and LAN sides would not work.

Personally I think having serial NAT is fine if you set it up correctly and the intention is to protect the smaller subnet from the bigger subnet. I do that on my network that is shared with another household. We trust each other to share an outbound connection but not enough to access each others' computer.

Your previous router that just work may be from a brand that uses a different default setting (i.e. SMC using a subnet of 192.168.123.254 for gateway).


With a decent piece of hardware (I'm using a Juniper SSG 5 right now) you can setup a whole host of different subnets all behind the same gateway, all having NAT performed on them by the same device. This allows for network separation, individual security policies, QoS parameters and the like without having to resort to performing serial NAT, which CAN cause headaches. Headaches like the OP is experiencing which I assume is due to exactly what you are describing: He has overlapping subnets; 192.168.0.0/24 is being NAT'd through a network which is also 192.168.0.0/24. The gateway IP's would be the same and would cause some excitement for the devices depending on what they are running for software.

I understand the "cost" aspect of somebody wanting to use inexpensive hardware, whilst achieving network isolation and why using serial NAT is a convenience in that regard. However as I think you and I have been over before, it is not a "recommended" configuration for a variety of reasons.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I understand the "cost" aspect of somebody wanting to use inexpensive hardware, whilst achieving network isolation and why using serial NAT is a convenience in that regard. However as I think you and I have been over before, it is not a "recommended" configuration for a variety of reasons.


Totally agree. I wouldn't recommend people to dump their $20 routers that work just fine and buy a $450 one just to make everything neat and organized. My opinion is making lemonade that works 99% out of what you have, and yours is probably more about designing something that works correctly 100% of the time.

 

[OVERKILL]

 

[wrcsixeight]

Thank you for your input. This stuff is well over my head but I will bookmark this for when I get another router.

Since this router will only be for internet, and the future router will sit outside under a carport(in coastal San Diego) it must be viewed as semi disposable, so I'm not spending more than 40$ for it

I do use an older laptop with a B/G only wifi dongle along with my new laptop which incorporates N and am thinking that since the g router is basically faster than my cable modem that going to N is not necessary, especially if the router must be set to either b/g or N as I seen some reviews state.

The router which had no conflicting issues and lasted for 3 years under the carport was a 25$ TP link B/G

 

[brianl703]

We've got someone here that likes to design networks with serial NAT. Job security, I suppose.