Linksys Wireless Router + Lab Rack

It may be a stupid question and perhaps I've been thinking about it lately but haven't put much effort into actually implementing it but here's the scenerio:

I've got my 25down/5up connection from Cox using a Moto surfboard modem connected to a Linksys wireless N router which doubles as a switch distribution switch to another Linksys access switch that my computers and gaming systems use. Now I want to directly connect my connection to one of my lab routers and implement DHCP and NAT to replace the functions of the Linksys router and use one of my 3550s as a replacement for my dinky 8port 10/100. I'll probably have to put most of my other stuff on a different Vlan so the lab doesn't interfere with normal network functions. However, I'd still like to keep the wireless N functionality of the router, perhaps using it as a bridge of sorts. Right now I'm faking an ISP connection by having a serial connection to my Frame Relay switch with a dummy IP address.

In the future I intend on getting an Aeronet Access Point (perks of having a buddy who works for Cisco) so I can use that as my wireless alternative and have a fully functioning rack, but until then, I need help. Any suggestions from the gurus??

Som

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

wbosher

I'm not sure if this is what you want to do but here is what I did.

I've got a Dynalink ADSL router for my internet connection. In the settings for this router, I turned of the NAT function so it is only acting as a DSL modem (I think this is called half-bridge mode?). Connected to this is a Cisco switch, which is then connected to a Cisco 2620 router.

The switchport connected to the ADSL router is in VLAN 100, this in turn goes to the Cisco router which is configured with ROAS. My PC is connect to the switch in VLAN 200.

The ethernet port on the Cisco router is configured to do the NATing (replacing the NAT function of the ADSL router), and is also set up to receive an IP address from the ISP using DHCP.

I have three routers, one switch and two PCs in my lab and all can connect to the internet this way.

Like I said, I'm not entirely sure if this is what you were after, but here it is anyway.

Somnipotent

wbosher wrote: »

I'm not sure if this is what you want to do but here is what I did.

I've got a Dynalink ADSL router for my internet connection. In the settings for this router, I turned of the NAT function so it is only acting as a DSL modem. Connected to this is a Cisco switch, which is then connected to a Cisco 2620 router.

The switchport connected to the ADSL router is in VLAN 100, this in turn goes to the Cisco router which is configured with ROAS. My PC is connect to the switch in VLAN 200.

The ethernet port on the Cisco router is configured to do the NATing (replacing the NAT function of the ADSL router), and is also set up to receive an IP address from the ISP using DHCP.

I have three routers, one switch and two PCs in my lab and all can connect to the internet this way.

Like I said, I'm not entirely sure if this is what you were after, but here it is anyway.

I'm gonna go test this out in a bit... if you don't see my reply in a few hours, I broke my stuff.

Netwurk

It's possible (depending on your ISP) to connect a Cisco router directly to your DSL modem. The config's a bit complicated, but it's doable.

I connect to my ISP with a Cisco 2621 using PPPoE. Years ago, I used a 2514 which would still work if for some reason my 2600 died.

wbosher

It is connected directly into my DSL modem.

Do you mean directly into the RJ11 phone jack?

You can get an ADSL WIC to allow you to do this which I did look into, but it was a real hassle, and like you said config was complicated and a bit over my head.

The way I did it was was MUCH easier, and works well.

Netwurk

wbosher wrote: »

It is connected directly into my DSL modem. Do you mean directly into the RJ11 phone jack?

You can get an ADSL WIC to allow you to do this which I did look into, but it was a real hassle, and like you said config was complicated and a bit over my head.

The way I did it was was MUCH easier, and works well.

Mine is connected to a Westell DSL modem, which is not really a modem but a bridge. The 2621 makes the call to the ISP and supplies the credentials. It also handles the NAT duties.

I supposed with an ADSL WIC I could do away with the modem. Might look into it some day.

Forsaken_GA

Netwurk wrote: »

It's possible (depending on your ISP) to connect a Cisco router directly to your DSL modem. The config's a bit complicated, but it's doable.

I connect to my ISP with a Cisco 2621 using PPPoE. Years ago, I used a 2514 which would still work if for some reason my 2600 died.

It all depends on the provider. I have AT&T and the modem they sent me can function as a cheap router doing NAT. I just switched it into bridge mode. The modem handles the PPPoE authentication but passes through all the rest of the network functions to my router. I just had to set the fa interface on my router to pull an IP via DHCP and everything was good to go.

Netwurk

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

It all depends on the provider. I have AT&T and the modem they sent me can function as a cheap router doing NAT. I just switched it into bridge mode. The modem handles the PPPoE authentication but passes through all the rest of the network functions to my router. I just had to set the fa interface on my router to pull an IP via DHCP and everything was good to go.

Exactly what I did with Verizon (SE Pennsylvania) with the added chore of doing the PPPoE and NAT stuff with my router.

Locked it down with an access list. Haven't touched my original config in years, but it forced me to learn NAT which helped with the CCNA track.

wbosher

Netwurk wrote: »

but it forced me to learn NAT which helped with the CCNA track.

That's exactly why I did it this way. I could access the internet just fine without disabling NAT on my ADSL router, but where's the fun in that?

Forsaken_GA

Netwurk wrote: »

Exactly what I did with Verizon (SE Pennsylvania) with the added chore of doing the PPPoE and NAT stuff with my router.

Locked it down with an access list. Haven't touched my original config in years, but it forced me to learn NAT which helped with the CCNA track.

Well, unless you have multiple IP's from the provider, you'd have to do NAT on the router anyway if you're passing through the public IP to your routers interface instead of leaving it on the modems. I liked the fact that I could let the modem do the PPPoE setup so that I didn't have to do it on the router, as far as my router was concerned, the modem was just an uplink port that it could pull an IP from.