Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm trying to link two Cisco routers with a static route and I haven't been able to get it working as expected.

Here is the basic setup:

  • Router 1 - WRV210 - 192.168.1.1 - connected to cable modem
  • Router 2 - RV120W - 192.168.2.1

I already have several machines on Router 1 that are working and I want to setup Router 2 with a few other machines on the different subnet.

Here is what I've configured:

  • Connected the WAN port on Router 2 to a LAN port on Router 1
  • Configured Router 1 to give 192.168.1.2 to Router 2 via DHCP
  • Configured Router 1 with a static route (192.168.2.0 mask 255.255.255.0) to 192.168.1.2 using the LAN & Wireless interface
  • Disabled the firewall on Router 2 (since it is covered by Router 1)
  • Configured Router 2 to "Router" mode instead of "NAT" mode
  • Configured Router 2 with a static route (192.168.1.0 mask 255.255.255.0) to 192.168.1.1 using the WAN interface

From the research I've done I think that should be enough but things aren't working exactly as expected:

  • Router 2 can ping 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.1.101 (a machine on router 1)
  • A machine on Router 2 can ping 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.1.101 (a machine on router 1) ping 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.1.101 (a machine on router 1)
  • Router 1 can NOT ping 192.168.2.1 or 192.168.2.101 (a machine on router 2)
  • A machine on Router 1 can NOT ping 192.168.2.1 or 192.168.2.101 (a machine on router 2) can NOT ping 192.168.2.1 or 192.168.2.101 (a machine on router 2)
  • Router 1 and a machine on Router 1 can ping 192.168.1.2 (Router 2 itself)

I'm confused as to why Router 1 cannot talk to the 192.168.2.0/255.255.255.0 subnet. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

share|improve this question
1  
Would be much easier if you post configuration file. seems very strange to affect R2 IP by dhcp from R1... –  radius Jun 2 '10 at 10:21

2 Answers 2

Because the external interface on R2 is on the same LAN as the clients on 192.168.1.0/24, you'd need a route on each client on 192.168.1.0/24 to route to 192.168.2.0/24 via 192.168.1.2. That should do the trick (assuming R2 is routing, not NAT, and has no firewall.)

If I were you, I'd throw the link between the two routers into its own administrative VLAN and then you could route through this VLAN.

share|improve this answer

Router 2 does not need a static route to 192.168.1.1, it already knows how to get to that subnet (via its 192.168.1.2 interface). Router 1 does indeed need a route to 192.168.2.0, via 192.168.1.2.

For 192.168.2.x clients, the gateway is 192.168.2.1. For 192.168.1.x clients, the gateway is 192.168.1.1.

At this point, 192.168.1.x clients don't know how to get to 192.168.2.x. Simplest but not most efficient solution: static route on every client pointing to 192.168.2.0 via 192.168.1.2.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for the reply - I tried the static route on the client machine (routing 192.168.2.0/255.255.255.0 to 192.168.1.2) and that doesn't seem to change anything. –  Chris Kaczor Jun 2 '10 at 2:14
    
You also need to remove the "192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.1.1" route on Router 2. –  dtsomp Jun 2 '10 at 7:30
1  
Route on client is probably useless, default route to 192.168.1.1 it should be enough as the router1 should route to router2 –  radius Jun 2 '10 at 10:20
    
Could we see R2's routing table? –  dtsomp Jun 3 '10 at 15:37

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.