Printable View
What kind of conflicts would rise if you had your network come into a firewall/router and split to 2 systems and another firewall/router that split to an additional systems?
Why?
1.) Because I need another router for this section of the house.
2.) Because if the secondary network would be more secure, it would work out as a plus since the second router would be installed inside my office.
3.) If there would be issues, then I would go with a basic switch.
What kind of conflicts would rise if you had your network come into a firewall/router and split to 2 systems and another firewall/router that split to an additional systems?
Why?
1.) Because I need another router for this section of the house.
2.) Because if the secondary network would be more secure, it would work out as a plus since the second router would be installed inside my office.
3.) If there would be issues, then I would go with a basic switch.
As Long as you setup the Ips on the routers properly maybe having a 192 and a 172 or 10. addresses or disable dhcp and use static ips for the network, then the only real things I can think of would be as long as NAT doesnt do something obscurely weird you should be ok. It kind of seems like you will be doing a lot of redundant work though, opening the same ports on both routers. I might almost just run a switch off of it and add a software firewall in your office. just my thoughts though
As Long as you setup the Ips on the routers properly maybe having a 192 and a 172 or 10. addresses or disable dhcp and use static ips for the network, then the only real things I can think of would be as long as NAT doesnt do something obscurely weird you should be ok. It kind of seems like you will be doing a lot of redundant work though, opening the same ports on both routers. I might almost just run a switch off of it and add a software firewall in your office. just my thoughts though
a switch would be easier to set up. the only real reason to set up another router and firewall is if you planned to make one of the subnets more of a demilitarized zone. there are serveral reasons you'd want to do this, you can google dmz's to see if one applies to you.
a switch would be easier to set up. the only real reason to set up another router and firewall is if you planned to make one of the subnets more of a demilitarized zone. there are serveral reasons you'd want to do this, you can google dmz's to see if one applies to you.
You shouldn't have any issue and no conflicts as long as the "internal internal" network is completely separate from the "internal".
The master router will provide a 192.168.1.x address to the internal router, you could make the internal router's IP fixed if you want. Both routers can provide IP's in the same subnet and the addresses can even be the same because the two networks will be isolated by the routers. Port forwarding is also possible.
This is the kind of setup I would recommend if you have a wireless router. The wireless is the master router and any computers in that network would be considered in the DMZ. Then the second router protects your computers from the wireless network.
You shouldn't have any issue and no conflicts as long as the "internal internal" network is completely separate from the "internal".
The master router will provide a 192.168.1.x address to the internal router, you could make the internal router's IP fixed if you want. Both routers can provide IP's in the same subnet and the addresses can even be the same because the two networks will be isolated by the routers. Port forwarding is also possible.
This is the kind of setup I would recommend if you have a wireless router. The wireless is the master router and any computers in that network would be considered in the DMZ. Then the second router protects your computers from the wireless network.
As a matter of fact, the router/firewall I am currently using is a US Robotics Wireless. I can honestly say the secondary router (firewall or not) will not be wireless. I just think since the prices are so close to get another router w/ firewall is more realistic.
What about this situation:
I have a friend who has a network of five computers in his basement and networked off to one system in the living room, his bedroom, and his roommates room. Since his network comes into a router/firewall and then to a switch to be split thoughout the house. If his roommate wanted to secure his system from the rest or split the connection to more than one computer would they be able to use a firewall/router in the room without any conflict on the primary network?
As a matter of fact, the router/firewall I am currently using is a US Robotics Wireless. I can honestly say the secondary router (firewall or not) will not be wireless. I just think since the prices are so close to get another router w/ firewall is more realistic.
What about this situation:
I have a friend who has a network of five computers in his basement and networked off to one system in the living room, his bedroom, and his roommates room. Since his network comes into a router/firewall and then to a switch to be split thoughout the house. If his roommate wanted to secure his system from the rest or split the connection to more than one computer would they be able to use a firewall/router in the room without any conflict on the primary network?
Yes, it's the same scenario I described above basically. Once behind the second router/firewall the address ranges can be identical because they are isolated.
Say the external router, (ER), (publicly accessible), is at LAN address 192.168.1.1 and the WAN address of the internal router, (IR), is at 192.168.1.2 with a LAN address 192.168.1.1 and there is a machine, (IM), behind the internal router at address 192.168.1.2.
If the internal machine requests HTTP from yahoo it goes like this:-
1. Packet sent from IM to IR, (default gateway)
2. IR updates connection table, masquerades IP to IR WAN address forwards packet to ER, (it's default gateway).
3. ER updates connection table to show the connection is from IR WAN address, forwards packet to Yahoo masqueraded with the WAN address of ET.
4. Yahoo responds to WAN address or ER.
5. ER Checks connection table, forwards packet to WAN address of IR.
6. IR checks connection table, forwards packet to ip address of IM.
Note: both routers have the same LAN address but different WAN addresses and that the WAN address of the IR is the same as the IP address of the IM. There can be duplication of IP addresses on both the internal and "external" network as long as the router firewall separates the two networks.
Yes, it's the same scenario I described above basically. Once behind the second router/firewall the address ranges can be identical because they are isolated.
Say the external router, (ER), (publicly accessible), is at LAN address 192.168.1.1 and the WAN address of the internal router, (IR), is at 192.168.1.2 with a LAN address 192.168.1.1 and there is a machine, (IM), behind the internal router at address 192.168.1.2.
If the internal machine requests HTTP from yahoo it goes like this:-
1. Packet sent from IM to IR, (default gateway)
2. IR updates connection table, masquerades IP to IR WAN address forwards packet to ER, (it's default gateway).
3. ER updates connection table to show the connection is from IR WAN address, forwards packet to Yahoo masqueraded with the WAN address of ET.
4. Yahoo responds to WAN address or ER.
5. ER Checks connection table, forwards packet to WAN address of IR.
6. IR checks connection table, forwards packet to ip address of IM.
Note: both routers have the same LAN address but different WAN addresses and that the WAN address of the IR is the same as the IP address of the IM. There can be duplication of IP addresses on both the internal and "external" network as long as the router firewall separates the two networks.