Skip to main content

networking - routing to a computer on a switch behind a router?


Here is the setup:


Cable Modem -> Vonage "Router" (not really sure if it is a full router or not) -> Linksys Router -> Netgear Switch -> PC


When I had the PC connected directly to the router I could route to it just fine. When I put it behind the switch I no longer can.


Pardon my obvious lack of knowledge on this, but is there some way to route to the PC behind the switch or do I have to reconfigure the network somehow (eg: replace the switch with another router, reconnect it directly to the router, etc.)


If specific model names\values are needed I can provide them, but I believe this to be a general topic.


UPDATE #1


I completely removed the vonage device and I switched the PC to non-static ip, yet, I can not even connect to the local ip address from anywhere on the LAN. I am beginning to think it is a firewall or anti-virus problem.


EDIT #1


By "route to it" (the PC in question) I mean access ports running on said PC remotely. eg: port 80, 22, etc.


EDIT #2


The strange thing is, to get things to work (before) I had to config the vonage device to route to the router (which I had to hunt down it's local address) and then also route to the PC from the router as well. Additionally, I have the PC setup with a static IP as to prevent the address from being reassigned.


EDIT #3


I tried turning DHCP & NAT off at the router. With DHCP off I still have an outbound connection but the default gateway still shows up as the router and I still can't connect from external. When I turn NAT off I get no connection at all. I believe I used to have "double natting" working by routing traffic from the vonage device to the routers address, and then router to PC - but this no longer seems to work and I have no idea why. Furthermore, I can reach the router but NOT the vonage device from a browser - I find this highly suspect, but I have no idea what the cause.


Any other suggestions out there?


EDIT #3a


Removing the static IP config allows me to connect to the vonage device - not sure if that will help someone else, just throwing it out there.



Answer



Unless you really know what you're doing, you only want one box acting as a NAT gateway and DHCP server on your home network. When most people say "router" in the context of a home network, they're actually talking about something that's acting as a full NAT gateway, not a simple IP router.


I'm sure your Vonage box does NAT and DHCP. Also, it makes sure that your voice traffic gets the priority it needs when forwarding it to your broadband connection (i.e. your cable modem). But the Vonage box can only do that for your voice traffic when it's at the head of your network.


So, for best results, make sure your cable modem and your Linksys router are not serving NAT and DHCP. Have the cable modem simply bridge between Ethernet and cable, and have the Linksys box simply bridge between LAN and WAN.


If the Linksys box doesn't provide a way to turn NAT off, then turn its DHCP server off and stop using its WAN port -- just plug one of its LAN ports into the LAN side of the Vonage box. This allows the Linksys box to still act as a Wi-Fi access point (assuming that's what you're using it for -- if you don't need it, then take it out of the picture), and it acts as an Ethernet switch among its LAN ports.


With any NAT gateway, if you want it to forward incoming connection attempts from the outside world in to some host on your LAN, you'll have to set up port mappings in the NAT gateway to tell it which next-hop IP address and port to forward that kind of connection attempt to. If you set up your network with multiple NATs, then you have to tell each NAT about the next-hop NAT gateway, which is a pain and is one of the reasons you should avoid "double NATting" unless you really know what you're doing and have a good reason to do so.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

keyboard - Is there any utility/method to change Windows key bindings to type rare chars to currently empty bindings?

I'm currently typing this post with my windows XP machine and (Spanish) keyboard, and I'd like to add some extra symbols to my text. I could open the "char map" windows utility, look for the desired symbols, and paste them. But I'd like something quickier. For example, when I'm using my OSX Mac at work, I can easily add a ©, ™, ® or similar symbols, just pressing some weird ALT-GR + G / H / J, key combinations. In my (Spanish) keyboard mapping, these combinations are empty, as they don't produce any char at all, which, on the other hand, is perfectly normal and desirable. So, I thought: Why couldn't I add some extra key mappings on top of my currently empty ALT-GR + G/J/H Keys in my Spanish keyboard, and thus, being able to quickly type these special symbols? So that's my question: Is there any utility/method to achieve that effect under windows? (My version is XP). I've even googled this for some time but no luck. I've been a long term Hot...
Post a Comment
Read more

virtualization - How to select paravirtualization interface in VirtualBox?

Given a windows 8 host system (Intel Core i5) and a Linux Fedora host, I would like to determine the optimal setting for the paravirtual interface. Options are none Default Legacy minimal Hyper-V KVM This page suggest the selection is only based on the guest system: The biggest change in VirtualBox 5.0 is the introduction of paravirtualization support, bringing higher performance and time-keeping accuracy to supported guest operating systems (Hyper-V on Windows and KVM on Linux). Is that correct? Answer The VirtualBox Manual , in the section titled Paravirtualization providers explains very clearly when each should be used (emphasis added): Minimal: Announces the presence of a virtualized environment. Additionally, reports the TSC and APIC frequency to the guest operating system. This provider is mandatory for running any Mac OS X guests. KVM: Presents a Linux KVM hypervisor interface which is recognized by Linux kernels starting with version 2.6.25. VirtualBox's implementati...
Post a Comment
Read more

Desktop reboots itself on sleep or hibernate

I have been using an ASUS M2NPV-VM motherboard for main home desktop workstation, operating Windows Vista x64. This computer has right from day one not been able to enter hibernate or standby; after Windows performs its final actions and brings the machine down, it would automatically revive itself for a reboot. Updating to the second latest BIOS (1201)has not helped (the latest BIOS revision would induce video refresh problems rendering it unusable). I have been reading related discussions on incidents similar to mine to no avail of a true workable solution. They appear to be more speculative guesses rather than actual knowledge on the inner workings of motherboard hardware. Does anybody have any electronic engineering experience on PC energy-saving standards to provide a more informed opinion how to go about getting this to work? More stories: this motherboard could not even reboot properly the first thing i used it. It was due to refresh rate of the onboard GPU, which had no influe...
Post a Comment
Read more

security - How is Linux not prone to viruses, malware and those kinds of things?

How is Linux protected against viruses? This question was a Super User Question of the Week . Read the blog entry for more details or contribute to the blog yourself Answer Well, it factually is not... it's just less subject to hackers developing viruses that target Linux systems. Consumer grade computers usually run on Windows and thus, when targeting a wide audience, Windows is the way to go. Don't misunderstand Linux and viruses, there definitely ARE Linux viruses. Some distros have additional protection layers such as SELinux (See here ) in Ubuntu for example. Then there's the default firewall and the fact that alien files don't automatically have permission to be executed. Specific execution permission has to be granted before execution is possible. (See here ) Then there are several other factors that make Linux a hard place to be for viruses usually non-root users on linux systems have no to little executable files at their disposal that would allow for virus...
Post a Comment
Read more