Got a new router...having trouble getting connectable AGAIN

[superhokie]

Just when I thought I was getting good at this stuff....I'm currently not connectable with my new Linksys WR54TG2 router. OS is Windows XP. Here's what I have so far:

* My laptop's IP address is 192.168.0.101 so I set that as my static IP address.

* Default Gateway is 192.168.0.1

* DNS Server is 192.168.1.1

I already did the portforwarding in my router configuration page as follows:

Application = Utor1
Start port = 49979
End port = 49979
Protocol = both
IP Address = 192.168.0.101 (which is the same as my static IP I set up)
Enable is checked

....yet uTorrent & canyouseeme.org say I'm not connectable. I get a timeout error at canyouseeme.org....

Any suggestions? I think there must be something very simple here I'm missing.

Thanks...

[superhokie]

forgot to mention, I'm using uTorrent 1.8.3...

[direwolf-pgh]

* My laptop's IP address is 192.168.0.101 so I set that as my static IP address.

* Default Gateway is 192.168.0.1

* DNS Server is 192.168.1.1typo, right? DNS is 192.168.0.1 (router)

didnt you have the double router config last we had a chat? Verizon DSL modem/router?

[superhokie]

typo, right? DNS is 192.168.0.1 (router)

didnt you have the double router config last we had a chat? Verizon DSL modem/router?

nope, not a typo....when I do ipconfig /all it says my DNS is 192.168.1.1

Yes, I'm using a Westell 2200 modem and a WRT54G2 Linksys router. It's the same hardware config I had for almost a year until I had some issues about 2 weeks ago or whenever it was....never had an issue prior to that with this same config and was always connectable.

Do I need to do something like port forward the modem THEN port forward the router?

[superhokie]

Do I need to do something like port forward the modem THEN port forward the router?

OR am I supposed to set the Westell 2200 to bridge mode and then the portforwarding I set up on the WRT54g2 as is?

The problem there is, while I can access the router config page at 192.168.0.1 -- I am not able to access the modem config page (192.168.1.1) because I keep getting a "401 Not Authorized" error.

my problems have problems, ha

[direwolf-pgh]

you should only have one router - I'll leave it at that :)

[superhokie]

you should only have one router - I'll leave it at that :)

Fair enough...but the WRTG54 isn't a modem+router - it's just a router....so I still need to have a DSL modem to accept the phone line from the wall. Like I said, I had this exactly same hardware in place for a year without any problem. Hence my frustration as to why this isn't working now.

[superhokie]

Also, I realize that the Westell is technically a "router" as well - but it doesn't have any wireless capability, hence the reason why I have the Linksys in the mix.

My understanding of the situation is that if I set the Westell to bridge mode and the Linksys to PPOE, it should work...but the last time I tried that, all my IP addresses got screwed up (10.10.10..., etc.). I don't want that happening again...

[direwolf-pgh]

My understanding of the situation is that if I set the Westell to bridge mode and the Linksys to PPOE, it should work...but the last time I tried that, all my IP addresses got screwed up (10.10.10..., etc.). I don't want that happening again...then we are going nowhere fast :(

[superhokie]

sounds like I'm going to have to live with not being connectable....bye bye ratio

[direwolf-pgh]

putting your westell dsl modem/router in bridge mode simply turns off the router functionality
Bridge mode = just a DSL modem that will pass the external IP (real IP) to your linksys.

westell in bridge mode >

linksys set to DHCP (or PPPOE - ??i thought Verizon stopped using this??) external | DHCP or static IP config for your internal network.

[superhokie]

putting your westell dsl modem/router in bridge mode simply turns off the router functionality
Bridge mode = just a DSL modem that will pass the external IP (real IP) to your linksys.

westell in bridge mode >

linksys set to DHCP (or PPPOE - ??i thought Verizon stopped using this??) external | DHCP or static IP config for your internal network.

so basically I'm screwed, eh?

[direwolf-pgh]

a double router config is/was never a good idea.

[superhokie]

well in my situation i didn't have much choice. and since it worked fine in the past i saw no reason not to have this config again.

[stoner]

I have same, did you restart the router and pc? should work.

[superhokie]

I have same, did you restart the router and pc? should work.

yep, tried that a couple times actually. I seed with a laptop that's connected to the wireless network. There's a desktop on the network also, but I don't use it and the desktop is hardwired into the router. I've rebooted everything multiple times...

[stoner]

Did you try running Speed Test from utorrent. From there You can test the port (verify utorrent and router are looking at the same port).

[superhokie]

yep, did that too....the router & utorrent are both using the same port...

[stoner]

From Comand Prompt type ipconfig. Verify IP address is the same as router is set to. If not change the address in the router.

[superhokie]

From Comand Prompt type ipconfig. Verify IP address is the same as router is set to. If not change the address in the router.

just confirmed the IP address of laptop is same as what I set up to forward in the router (192.168.0.101)...

[bot]

why two routers is a ridiculous idea in a standard network (http://forums.linksys.com/linksys/board/message?board.id=Wireless_Routers&message.id=26177)

:bop:

[bot]

:lmao:
A router is a separating network element. It separates two networks and allows certain traffic to cross. Sometimes this is necessary in a network setup but for most home networks it only creates a lot of obstacles.

1. In default Gateway mode the second router does network address translation (NAT). This means computers connected to the second router can connect to computers connected to the first router but not in the opposite direction.

2. If you use Router mode on the second router: you have to configure "routes" on the first router and possibly your computer connected to the first router so that IP packets find their way into the subnet of the second router.

3. You have two separate ethernet networks and thus two "broadcast" domains. A broadcast in the first router's subnet reaches all computers connected there. The same applies to the second router. A broadcast will never cross the second router, though. This is an obstacle for applications that depend on broadcasting to locate other computers and services. Windows file and printer sharing is one example here. With the second router in between, computers on one side do not know about computers on the other side. You cannot search your workgroup for the computer on the other side even when they use the identical workgroup name. You will be able to access the other computer using the IP address directly (e.g. \\192.168.1.100\share) but that's usually a hassle and the IP address may change if it is assigned by the DHCP server to the computer. There are ways to deal with some of these issues (e.g. save the host names in lmhosts files...) but all this requires more effort and attention to keep everything up-to-date.

4. Port forwardings become more complicated. If you need a port forwarding (i.e. you want a port on a computer in your network to be accessible from the internet) on a computer connected to the second router you have to setup two forwardings: one on the first router to the second router and one on the second router to the computer.

5. If you have two wireless routers: you cannot roam between both routers without loosing the connection. This is simply because if a wireless computers moves from one router to the other it needs a different IP address.

6. The whole configuration becomes more complicated: you always have to think about where to configure what, e.g. dynamic DNS service, access restrictions, ...

Bottom line: unless you have good reasons why you must have some computers separated from the other computers in your network, there is no good reason to in a home network to do so. For normal home networking with simple to use file and printer sharing it is better to connect the second router as suggested in this post...:bop:

[superhokie]

While I appreciate the responses, having 3 different people tell me I shouldn't have 2 routers is overkill. I've explained why I have a DSL modem and a wireless router hooked up. My DSL modem doesn't have wireless capability - hence the need for a wireless network (see: WIRELESS ROUTER). The router is brand new (and was free) so I'm not about to run out and buy a new DSL modem/router combo. DSL isn't very common in my area to begin with. Even my local best buy doesn't carry DSL modems. I live in the middle of Comcast Country, but I refuse to do business with Comcast - so I use Verizon DSL.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - even if my DSL modem + wireless router setup isn't ideal - this exact same configuration worked for over a year with NO issues at all. It's only been since my last router died and I replaced it with the exact same model that these issues began happening. Previously I had forwarded a port from the modem to the wireless router, then from the router to the laptop -- and it worked fine. Yet when I have tried to do that since getting the replacement router, I am unable to get the same configuration/settings to work this time. If my setup is "bad", I have yet to hear anyone explain how it is I was fully connectable for over a year with the same hardware/setup/config.

So even though many of you may think my setup is not optimal (and you may be right) there is still no reason why this setup shouldn't work since I had it working in the past with the exact same hardware. Thanks.

[Mr Grumpy]

with so many routers, you should know something about routing!

[stoner]

Since you didn't pay for the router, maybe now is a good time to buy a modem. Ditch the combo.