A Linksys AP and a Cisco/Linksys wireless router. About 50' from each
other. Same building. Each connected to a different ISP & cable modem.
But they can't coexist for some reason. If the Cisco is turned on, users
connected to the Linksys AP can no longer connect to the interenet. They
can ping the cable modem that the AP is connected to.
What needs to be changed to make this work? Is it just a matter of putting
them on different wireless channel?
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:27:17 -0500, "JohnB" <jbrigan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>A Linksys AP and a Cisco/Linksys wireless router.
Did it come with the model numbers rubbed off or are you just lazy?
>About 50' from each
>other. Same building. Each connected to a different ISP & cable modem.
Huh? Do you have two different cable internet vendors? That's rather
unlikely because most cities sell franchises to single monopoly cable
vendors. There are some overbuilders, but not for cable. Names of
cable ISP's? Maker and model numbers of the cable modems?
>But they can't coexist for some reason.
What are the symptoms exactly. Cannot connect is too vague.
>If the Cisco is turned on, users
>connected to the Linksys AP can no longer connect to the interenet. They
>can ping the cable modem that the AP is connected to.
Are the users on the same LAN network? In other words, are they
sharing the same router which may or may not be plugged into one or
both of these cable modems?
>What needs to be changed to make this work?
You need to change your fear of numbers. You'll get much better
answers to your questions if you supply model numbers, IP address
layouts, and other specifics that seem lacking.
>Is it just a matter of putting
>them on different wireless channel?
I only see one Cisco/Linksys wireless router. Is there something else
you didn't mention that also does wireless? If on the same channel,
it might cause problems. However, they wouldn't be able to ping the
cable modem if that were the case, so it's unlikely.
>Thanks
Not yet. It's considered bad luck to offer thanks before the problem
is resolved.
I never imagined such detail would be necessary, but then I forgot I was in
the wireless forum. ;-)
I don't have access to that network right now, so to keep it simple, lets
just use, as an example... 2 Linksys routers that are exactly the same. Say
a WRT54GL.
2 routers, connected to 2 different cable modems. And different ISPs. Cox
and Embarq. You'll have to trust me on that.
In a default, out of the box setup.... no wireless security.... would there
be an issue with that setup? By "issue" I mean, would there be any problems
connecting to the internet, for wireless clients, even though clients would
be within close enough proximity to both routers to connect to either
routers?
2 different DHCP scopes.
192.168.1.2
192.168.1.1
Thanks (willing to take a chance)
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:lsb9p4l68fito65jc6070sr238bqvjemln@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:27:17 -0500, "JohnB" <jbrigan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>A Linksys AP and a Cisco/Linksys wireless router.
>
> Did it come with the model numbers rubbed off or are you just lazy?
>
>>About 50' from each
>>other. Same building. Each connected to a different ISP & cable modem.
>
> Huh? Do you have two different cable internet vendors? That's rather
> unlikely because most cities sell franchises to single monopoly cable
> vendors. There are some overbuilders, but not for cable. Names of
> cable ISP's? Maker and model numbers of the cable modems?
>
>>But they can't coexist for some reason.
>
> What are the symptoms exactly. Cannot connect is too vague.
>
>>If the Cisco is turned on, users
>>connected to the Linksys AP can no longer connect to the interenet. They
>>can ping the cable modem that the AP is connected to.
>
> Are the users on the same LAN network? In other words, are they
> sharing the same router which may or may not be plugged into one or
> both of these cable modems?
>
>>What needs to be changed to make this work?
>
> You need to change your fear of numbers. You'll get much better
> answers to your questions if you supply model numbers, IP address
> layouts, and other specifics that seem lacking.
>
>>Is it just a matter of putting
>>them on different wireless channel?
>
> I only see one Cisco/Linksys wireless router. Is there something else
> you didn't mention that also does wireless? If on the same channel,
> it might cause problems. However, they wouldn't be able to ping the
> cable modem if that were the case, so it's unlikely.
>
>>Thanks
>
> Not yet. It's considered bad luck to offer thanks before the problem
> is resolved.
>
> --
> # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
> # 831-336-2558 jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
> # http://802.11junk.comjeffl@cruzio.com
> # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
for some reason, my news server only had Jeff as the anchor for the
thread....
"JohnB" <jbrigan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4994d1f7$0$4865$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshostin g.com...
>I never imagined such detail would be necessary, but then I forgot I was in
>the wireless forum. ;-)
>
> I don't have access to that network right now, so to keep it simple, lets
> just use, as an example... 2 Linksys routers that are exactly the same.
> Say a WRT54GL.
>
> 2 routers, connected to 2 different cable modems. And different ISPs.
> Cox and Embarq. You'll have to trust me on that.
>
> In a default, out of the box setup.... no wireless security.... would
> there be an issue with that setup? By "issue" I mean, would there be any
> problems connecting to the internet, for wireless clients, even though
> clients would be within close enough proximity to both routers to connect
> to either routers?
> 2 different DHCP scopes.
> 192.168.1.2
> 192.168.1.1
>
> Thanks (willing to take a chance)
>
so - what's the problem ?
you should be able to get a DHCP address from each pool,
and then connect to the Internet via that specific WAP/Router.
What SSID is being used - the same ?
What channels - the same ?
I would think everything would be ok if you didn't try to roam around
and transfer from "segment" to "segment" -
Because the IP address of course would be a problem for the "other" segment
router.
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:50:40 -0500, "JohnB" <jbrigan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I never imagined such detail would be necessary, but then I forgot I was in
>the wireless forum. ;-)
If you want specific answers, you have to supply specifics. However,
if you want guesswork, I can do that too.
>I don't have access to that network right now, so to keep it simple, lets
>just use, as an example... 2 Linksys routers that are exactly the same. Say
>a WRT54GL.
Amazing. The subject line says "wireless router and a WAP". Now we
have two routers. That duz make a difference.
>2 routers, connected to 2 different cable modems. And different ISPs. Cox
>and Embarq. You'll have to trust me on that.
I don't trust anyone, especially when they leave out details. Do
these two ISP's share the same coax cable? It should make any
difference. I'm just curious how things are done outside of the left
coast.
>In a default, out of the box setup.... no wireless security.... would there
>be an issue with that setup? By "issue" I mean, would there be any problems
>connecting to the internet, for wireless clients, even though clients would
>be within close enough proximity to both routers to connect to either
>routers?
>2 different DHCP scopes.
>192.168.1.2
>192.168.1.1
Those are NOT two different "scopes" (whatever that means). You have
two different networks sharing the same Class C IP address block
(192.168.1.xxx) with probably two identical default gateway
(192.168.1.1) IP's located in two different devices with different MAC
addresses. That's not going to work. A typical wired or wireless
client can probably connect to either router, but will not be able to
switch because the ARP table still has the MAC address of the previous
router stored for the default gateway IP. You can test this my
creating whatever magic you used to initiate a no internet condition.
Then run:
Start -> Run -> cmd <enter>
arp -d 192.168.1.1
to delete the ARP table entry from the previous router. Then ping the
gateway IP again to repopulate the table and try the internet again.
It should work. You can also run:
arp -a
to see what MAC address your laptop thinks it associated with the
default gateway. If it's the wrong router, it won't work.
Incidentally, what you seem to be doing is trying to create a
"seamless roaming" setup between two networks. Be advised that the
IEEE has been laboriously doing that in 802.11r and that none of your
unspecified hardware is probably compliant.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11r>
I would offer you a guess(tm) on how to fix your mess, but my
masochistic tendencies prefer to make you suffer for your lack of
numbers. However, I also need a Karma recharge, so I'll condescend to
supply my best guess.
1. Set the two routers for different class C networks. 192.168.1.xxx
and 192.168.2.xxx will work.
2. Set the IP address of the routers to 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.2.1
Those will also be the default gateways for the two networks.
3. Set the SSID for both routers to something unique and different so
that you can easily distinguish between them. No, not "Linksys".
4. Set the routers to two different wireless channels (1, 6, or 11)
to prevent mutual interference. If they can see each other, I suggest
1 and 11.
5. Initially do your testing with encryption off. However, once it's
working, set both wireless routers to WPA-PSK or WPA-Personal. Select
a suitably cryptic pass phrase.
6. Work on documenting your system. You're probably as sloppy with
the documentation and saved setups as you are asking techy questions.
7. Send me your life's savings.
>Thanks (willing to take a chance)
I keep telling you that it's bad luck to offer thanks before the
problem is solved. If it wasn't for my current Karma shortage, I
would have made you suffer dearly by insisting that you describe your
setup in excruciating detail before offering my best guesswork.
That was a typo... should have been 192.168.2.1 and 192.168.1.1
They were setup with different SSID's but, that still didn't work. All
worked fine when just the Linksys AP was on. Once the Cisco router was
turned on, users on the Linksys would loose their connection to the internet
(Page Not found).
So maybe the issue is the channel. That they're the same. I'm not there
today, but the next time I am, I'll try channels 1 and 11.
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:0e1ap4honhl44q1hsuuc9b04mv4bh657v2@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:50:40 -0500, "JohnB" <jbrigan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I never imagined such detail would be necessary, but then I forgot I was
>>in
>>the wireless forum. ;-)
>
> If you want specific answers, you have to supply specifics. However,
> if you want guesswork, I can do that too.
>
>>I don't have access to that network right now, so to keep it simple, lets
>>just use, as an example... 2 Linksys routers that are exactly the same.
>>Say
>>a WRT54GL.
>
> Amazing. The subject line says "wireless router and a WAP". Now we
> have two routers. That duz make a difference.
>
>>2 routers, connected to 2 different cable modems. And different ISPs.
>>Cox
>>and Embarq. You'll have to trust me on that.
>
> I don't trust anyone, especially when they leave out details. Do
> these two ISP's share the same coax cable? It should make any
> difference. I'm just curious how things are done outside of the left
> coast.
>
>>In a default, out of the box setup.... no wireless security.... would
>>there
>>be an issue with that setup? By "issue" I mean, would there be any
>>problems
>>connecting to the internet, for wireless clients, even though clients
>>would
>>be within close enough proximity to both routers to connect to either
>>routers?
>>2 different DHCP scopes.
>>192.168.1.2
>>192.168.1.1
>
> Those are NOT two different "scopes" (whatever that means). You have
> two different networks sharing the same Class C IP address block
> (192.168.1.xxx) with probably two identical default gateway
> (192.168.1.1) IP's located in two different devices with different MAC
> addresses. That's not going to work. A typical wired or wireless
> client can probably connect to either router, but will not be able to
> switch because the ARP table still has the MAC address of the previous
> router stored for the default gateway IP. You can test this my
> creating whatever magic you used to initiate a no internet condition.
> Then run:
> Start -> Run -> cmd <enter>
> arp -d 192.168.1.1
> to delete the ARP table entry from the previous router. Then ping the
> gateway IP again to repopulate the table and try the internet again.
> It should work. You can also run:
> arp -a
> to see what MAC address your laptop thinks it associated with the
> default gateway. If it's the wrong router, it won't work.
>
> Incidentally, what you seem to be doing is trying to create a
> "seamless roaming" setup between two networks. Be advised that the
> IEEE has been laboriously doing that in 802.11r and that none of your
> unspecified hardware is probably compliant.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11r>
>
> I would offer you a guess(tm) on how to fix your mess, but my
> masochistic tendencies prefer to make you suffer for your lack of
> numbers. However, I also need a Karma recharge, so I'll condescend to
> supply my best guess.
> 1. Set the two routers for different class C networks. 192.168.1.xxx
> and 192.168.2.xxx will work.
> 2. Set the IP address of the routers to 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.2.1
> Those will also be the default gateways for the two networks.
> 3. Set the SSID for both routers to something unique and different so
> that you can easily distinguish between them. No, not "Linksys".
> 4. Set the routers to two different wireless channels (1, 6, or 11)
> to prevent mutual interference. If they can see each other, I suggest
> 1 and 11.
> 5. Initially do your testing with encryption off. However, once it's
> working, set both wireless routers to WPA-PSK or WPA-Personal. Select
> a suitably cryptic pass phrase.
> 6. Work on documenting your system. You're probably as sloppy with
> the documentation and saved setups as you are asking techy questions.
> 7. Send me your life's savings.
>
>>Thanks (willing to take a chance)
>
> I keep telling you that it's bad luck to offer thanks before the
> problem is solved. If it wasn't for my current Karma shortage, I
> would have made you suffer dearly by insisting that you describe your
> setup in excruciating detail before offering my best guesswork.
>
>
> --
> # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
> # 831-336-2558 jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
> # http://802.11junk.comjeffl@cruzio.com
> # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:09:27 -0500, "JohnB" <jbrigan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>That was a typo... should have been 192.168.2.1 and 192.168.1.1
Ummm.... first you leave out all of the important numbers. Then, what
few numbers you supply, are wrong. Have you considered changing
avocations to something that doesn't require numbers? Perhaps a
career as a technical writer, who's main purpose is to remove all
numbers and buzzwords from engineering manuals so that it's palatable
by the GUM (great unwashed masses)?
>They were setup with different SSID's but, that still didn't work. All
>worked fine when just the Linksys AP was on. Once the Cisco router was
>turned on, users on the Linksys would loose their connection to the internet
>(Page Not found).
>
>So maybe the issue is the channel. That they're the same. I'm not there
>today, but the next time I am, I'll try channels 1 and 11.
It might help if there was mutual interference but I doubt it.
Methinks there is something odd on your network. However, I can't
tell from here.
Why don't you crawl back in your cave. You sure weren't any help here.
I asked for help, and got derogatory comments.
Your post is a good example of people saying things to other people, on the
internet, that they wouldn't say in person.
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:scabp411eq1q0au7otva4v1nb7damajjdp@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:09:27 -0500, "JohnB" <jbrigan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>That was a typo... should have been 192.168.2.1 and 192.168.1.1
>
> Ummm.... first you leave out all of the important numbers. Then, what
> few numbers you supply, are wrong. Have you considered changing
> avocations to something that doesn't require numbers? Perhaps a
> career as a technical writer, who's main purpose is to remove all
> numbers and buzzwords from engineering manuals so that it's palatable
> by the GUM (great unwashed masses)?
>
>>They were setup with different SSID's but, that still didn't work. All
>>worked fine when just the Linksys AP was on. Once the Cisco router was
>>turned on, users on the Linksys would loose their connection to the
>>internet
>>(Page Not found).
>>
>>So maybe the issue is the channel. That they're the same. I'm not there
>>today, but the next time I am, I'll try channels 1 and 11.
>
> It might help if there was mutual interference but I doubt it.
> Methinks there is something odd on your network. However, I can't
> tell from here.
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
In article <4995c743$0$30197$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.c om>,
"JohnB" <jbrigan@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why don't you crawl back in your cave. You sure weren't any help here.
> I asked for help, and got derogatory comments.
> Your post is a good example of people saying things to other people, on the
> internet, that they wouldn't say in person.
JohnB wrote:
> Why don't you crawl back in your cave. You sure weren't any help here.
Well done - you've insulted one of the most skilled and knowledgeable
posters to this group, one of the people who actually does this stuff
for a living alongside being helpful for free here.
> Your post is a good example of people saying things to other people, on the
> internet, that they wouldn't say in person.
What was said below is precisely what would get said to your face if you
walked into a shop and first didn't give the necessary info, then gave
wrong info, then blustered and bullshitted and tried to blame the
mechanic for your own lack.
If you want help, a bit of humility would be sensible.
> "Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
> news:scabp411eq1q0au7otva4v1nb7damajjdp@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:09:27 -0500, "JohnB" <jbrigan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That was a typo... should have been 192.168.2.1 and 192.168.1.1
>> Ummm.... first you leave out all of the important numbers. Then, what
>> few numbers you supply, are wrong. Have you considered changing
>> avocations to something that doesn't require numbers? Perhaps a
>> career as a technical writer, who's main purpose is to remove all
>> numbers and buzzwords from engineering manuals so that it's palatable
>> by the GUM (great unwashed masses)?
"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
news:JQkll.202020$9i5.37640@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com...
> JohnB wrote:
>> Why don't you crawl back in your cave. You sure weren't any help here.
>
> Well done - you've insulted one of the most skilled and knowledgeable
> posters to this group, one of the people who actually does this stuff for
> a living alongside being helpful for free here.
>
>> Your post is a good example of people saying things to other people, on
>> the internet, that they wouldn't say in person.
>
> What was said below is precisely what would get said to your face if you
> walked into a shop and first didn't give the necessary info, then gave
> wrong info, then blustered and bullshitted and tried to blame the mechanic
> for your own lack.
>
> If you want help, a bit of humility would be sensible.
>
>> "Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
>> news:scabp411eq1q0au7otva4v1nb7damajjdp@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:09:27 -0500, "JohnB" <jbrigan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That was a typo... should have been 192.168.2.1 and 192.168.1.1
>
>>> Ummm.... first you leave out all of the important numbers. Then, what
>>> few numbers you supply, are wrong. Have you considered changing
>>> avocations to something that doesn't require numbers? Perhaps a
>>> career as a technical writer, who's main purpose is to remove all
>>> numbers and buzzwords from engineering manuals so that it's palatable
>>> by the GUM (great unwashed masses)?
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:17:13 -0500, "JohnB" <jbrigan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Why don't you crawl back in your cave. You sure weren't any help here.
>I asked for help, and got derogatory comments.
>Your post is a good example of people saying things to other people, on the
>internet, that they wouldn't say in person.
Sure. No problem. My palatial cave is quite comfortable. I deal
with most of my customers in person and on the phone. The universal
consensus is that I'm an abrasive and easily irritated curmudgeon that
usually fixes the problem and does things correctly. I've lost a few
customers that couldn't tolerate me... very few.
And yes, my comments are certainly derogatory. They were meant to
plant a virtual kick in your posterior in the apparently vain hope
that you might find it useful to supply the minimal information
necessary to generate a decent answer. Please don't feel that you're
being targeted for abuse. I do this to everyone that makes the same
mistake. If you want a decent answer, supply some decent information.
Quid pro quo.
Now, since you're pissed off, so am I. I wasted about 20 minutes
detailing what to do to fix your problem as indicated by your "typo
error". I don't mind burning my time dealing with guesswork.
Sometimes, that's all that's available. However, I do mind wasting it
on numerical sloppiness. That's why I suggested you find something to
do that doesn't involve numbers.
If you go back a few thousand years, the various oracles had the same
problem. Do you think the Greeks just showed up at the oracles front
door and demanded an instant answer without any preparation? Nope.
They brought gifts, offerings, praise, sacrifice, and goodies. The
spent time organizing their requests in order to avoid ambiguous or
useless answers from the oracle. Times have changed, but not that
much. My price is maker, model number, network topology, numbers,
symptoms, accurate descriptions, and the contents of your bank
account. I don't think that's too much to ask.
On Feb 13, 1:17*pm, "JohnB" <jbri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why don't you crawl back in your cave. *You sure weren't any help here.
> I asked for help, and got derogatory comments.
Obviously you have not been on this forum much or you would not have
said that. It's certainly easy to see how you could take offense at
Jeff's chiding, but you should realize :
1) He's one of best experts out there giving thought out free advice.
Not just snap answers. If you go search for info and answers on
wifi, many solutions you find has key info that Jeff laid out and left
on the web for all to use. Often I'm about to ask a question, then I
do a web search and find that Jeff explained it all two years ago in
some thread somewhere. He's not just some guy who knows a couple
things and gets a kick out of dominating newbies with his
expertise.
2) Yes, Jeff's abrasive at times, but once you have followed the posts
for a while, you realize it's never personal just his style of
dealing with the constant lack of info by the OPs. You will also
realize that you can insult him all you like and he won't take
offense. But if you return to the issue and do a good job of defining
it, Jeff will still help you resolve. Truly interested in solving the
problem, not being right or pissing people off - or pleasing them
either !
3) The chiding will always have an element of humor to it, if you
don't take offense too readily. Never too heavy, Jeff encourages this
group to stay light or at least return to that attitude when things
descend into insults and anger. Rule of the day here: Solve
problems, have a little fun and social interaction while learning and
sharing.
So, getting back on track - assuming that setting the channels not to
interfere with each other has been tried - perhaps define the problem
in the most thorough way you can - lay it out, with all possible
numbers?
Some ideas for info-
Wireless Gear - model and version? Firmware?
Settings for each router? gateways, DHCP, etc, um, what else
ipconfig /all from a pc after connecting and then after losing it ?
Wireless router and a WAP 
Linear Mode
