Two routers, one modem

[SoloCamo]

Hello all,

 

I've recently picked up a new Wifi 6E & Wifi7 capable router to assist with my Quest 3 performance as it supports 6E.    Currently I run the  original Wifi 6 single router which feeds an unmanaged 5 port switch in the main area of the house.  What I would like to do is use my current Wifi6 router in place of the unmanaged switch while also using it as an Access point for devices that are closer to that area.   Realistically these two routers will only be a a room or two apart from each other but the second router will be far closer to my security camera.

 

To land the plane here and get to the point is there really any benefit in doing so?  Is it as simple as just plugging the current cable from my main router into the wan port on the second router?   I'd like to keep my security cameras as if they couldn't see my main network but from my understanding the second router can still communicate with the traffic on the main router?  I've created a rough chart below as a reference point...  

 

Thanks for the help as always!

 

 

Edited May 26 by SoloCamo

[The Pook]

Yes and no, it kind of depends on what routers (and "OS") you're running on the routers. You'll run into issues if both are left completely stock and on default settings since they'll both be attempting to be DHCP servers.

 

Do you have any vlans or are you running a singular subnet across your entire network? 

 

Depending on the router, all you should have to do is go into the admin CP and set it as an access point. if the CP doesn't give you the option to do that, then you should just be able to disable DHCP functions on the 2nd router and it should (at least afaik, my experience outside Merlin and DD-WRT is limited) accomplish the same thing. 

[SoloCamo]

1 hour ago, The Pook said:

Yes and no, it kind of depends on what routers (and "OS") you're running on the routers. You'll run into issues if both are left completely stock and on default settings since they'll both be attempting to be DHCP servers.

 

Do you have any vlans or are you running a singular subnet across your entire network? 

 

Depending on the router, all you should have to do is go into the admin CP and set it as an access point. if the CP doesn't give you the option to do that, then you should just be able to disable DHCP functions on the 2nd router and it should (at least afaik, my experience outside Merlin and DD-WRT is limited) accomplish the same thing. 

 

Thanks.  Stock routers as far as OS on them goes (new one is TP Link, original is Netgear).  I'll assume setting it as an AP will still allow switch functionality from the four ports on the back?  I'd like to eliminate the 5 port switch and replace it with this router.

 

Also, currently setup as a single subnet.  Perhaps I've read wrong info online, but wouldn't the addition of the second router create a separate subnet?

 

As you can tell, I'm VERY rusty with networking.

[The Pook]

1 minute ago, SoloCamo said:

 

Thanks.  Stock routers as far as OS on them goes (new one is TP Link, original is Netgear).  I'll assume setting it as an AP will still allow switch functionality from the four ports on the back?  I'd like to eliminate the 5 port switch and replace it with this router.

 

Also, currently setup as a single subnet.  Perhaps I've read wrong info online, but wouldn't the addition of the second router create a separate subnet?

 

As you can tell, I'm VERY rusty with networking.

 

you can use one singular subnet.

 

both TP-Link and Netgear allow you to set a router to AP Mode (at least on most models). if you can do that then you'll be fine. the ports on the AP-router will work as normal unless they did some shenanigans to disable them. 

 

if you put a WiFi router into bridge/AP mode then it stops acting like a router and turns into a switch. if it's something that a switch can do, then (assuming your router's software allows it) then your new WiFi-router-turned-AP can do it too. if everything is on one subnet and you want it to stay that way then should be 1-2 clicks to setup and have working. 

[pio]

3 hours ago, The Pook said:

 

you can use one singular subnet.

 

both TP-Link and Netgear allow you to set a router to AP Mode (at least on most models). if you can do that then you'll be fine. the ports on the AP-router will work as normal unless they did some shenanigans to disable them. 

 

if you put a WiFi router into bridge/AP mode then it stops acting like a router and turns into a switch. if it's something that a switch can do, then (assuming your router's software allows it) then your new WiFi-router-turned-AP can do it too. if everything is on one subnet and you want it to stay that way then should be 1-2 clicks to setup and have working. 

I'd like to further expand on this a tad.  When you disable DHCP on the second router (or turn on AP mode), you'll NEED to plug the first router into Port 1 on the second router (or any port really besides WAN).  When using a router as a switch, you DO NOT use the WAN port as it is there for your ISP connection in.  In this instance, your second router is not connected directly to the ISP (for DHCP).  So you'd wire it up as an unmanaged switch, aka, you'd use the 4 ports without the WAN (since switches don't have a WAN).

And yes, this will work perfectly fine with like 99% of the routers I've ever played with.  Most routers have basic switch functionality in them already, you just need to disable DHCP first (or enable AP mode).

--------------------------
The way you were planning on wiring it up, by using the WAN port also in theory WILL work perfectly fine.  However to use the WAN port, you'd leave DHCP enabled (or leave the router in router mode).  This method WILL create basically a second network entirely off of the first one.  As such, both routers will have completely isolated networks.  You will be able to get into the first router's network from the second one, but NOT vice versa due to the WAN port on the second router being used.  At least, that's been my experience.  There might be like some port forwarding way to accomplish it or something, but yeah.  I haven't been able to make bidirectional communication happen using this method, only the first method listed above.

Edited May 26 by pio

[The Pook]

6 minutes ago, pio said:

You will be able to get into the first router's network from the second one, but NOT vice versa due to the WAN port on the second router being used.  At least, that's been my experience.  There might be like some port forwarding way to accomplish it or something, but yeah.  I haven't been able to make bidirectional communication happen using this method, only the first method listed above.

 

what happens if you enable NAT (or hairpin NAT if it's an option)?

[pio]

4 minutes ago, The Pook said:

 

what happens if you enable NAT (or hairpin NAT if it's an option)?

I've never had much luck with that option on consumer grade routers?  I'm also a networking noob, so also a very fair point to call that out.   

[The Pook]

9 minutes ago, pio said:

I've never had much luck with that option on consumer grade routers?  I'm also a networking noob, so also a very fair point to call that out.   

 

it should automagically disable if it's in AP mode (and it should be off if NAT is enabled on your primary router) but turning it off sometimes breaks stuff in some dumber SOHO routers. 

 

if turning it on lets you access the admin panel then you have your answer. otherwise I'd assume it's a security/firewall issue. kinda curious tho 

[pio]

1 minute ago, The Pook said:

 

it should automagically disable if it's in AP mode (and it should be off if NAT is enabled on your primary router) but turning it off sometimes breaks stuff in some dumber SOHO routers. 

 

if turning it on lets you access the admin panel then you have your answer. otherwise I'd assume it's a security/firewall issue. kinda curious tho 

I actually have a router connected to WAN on another router right now (kinda).  I did it on purpose to seperate the networks though.

I have 2x "naked" routers (each with their own ISP).  Those both plug into a PC on my rack, which connects the ISP's to my VPN together.  Then the VPN'ed connection goes out to another router's WAN port, which that router is my "main" router for the whole house.  As such, I have ZERO problems connecting directly to the "naked" networks behind the VPN'ed router, even though my actual connection is through the VPN to the internet.  However, in MY instance, I cannot connect to the VPN'ed network from inside of the "naked" networks.  It could be the PC in the middle, it could be a NAT setting.....idk.  Not going to mess with it since it works though.  

[Kaz]

I've done this using wifi bands without actually wiring the routers.  This was with a stock netgear router and one flashed with openWRT.

 

The openwrt router was configured as an access point and was using the 5ghz network to pick up the netgear router 5ghz.  This allowed me to plug a computer into the openwrt router and use it as a wifi card, while still rebroadcasting on the 2.4 ghz band.

 

It worked well, the only problem I ran into was accessing router configs.  Both wanted to claim 192.168.1.1 as the default router page.  My OpenWRT router seemed to have a bug in the webpage client that did not allow the IP address to change.  Swapping the netgear router to 192.168.2.1 allowed me to access both router config pages.

 

I can confirm, Netgear router will not by default allow config of the 2nd router, they are 2 different networks stacked on top of each other.

 

For physical cable wiring, in network+ class they talk about 2 different network cables.  Twisted pairs and standard.  A twisted pair can be ran from 1 router to another without using the yellow connection on the 2nd router.  A non-twisted pair will need to be plugged into the yellow connection on the 2nd router.

 

It has to do with how routers send and recieve information, which seems to line up with my limited memory of creating different network cables for different situations when we were running a high school network.

[SoloCamo]

Thanks for all the help everyone, I've actually not deployed the setup as I just upgraded my my ISP plan from 500mbps to 1gbps for an additional $5 a month (If I'd known the price increase was that cheap I would have did that a year ago...)  Upload is still crap at 40mbps but it's better than the 25mbps on the prior plan so this is helping the cameras a bit at least when they back up to my Arlo camera's servers.

 

I'll keep you all posted with what I end up with.

Edited May 30 by SoloCamo