Staredit Network > Forums > Technology & Computers > Topic: My quest modem wants to be a router [solved]
My quest modem wants to be a router [solved]
Aug 31 2011, 7:03 pm
By: omginbd  

Aug 31 2011, 7:03 pm omginbd Post #1



Alright, so my problem is that I have this ZyXEL PK5000Z that Qwest gave us as a modem, and it has built in wireless as well. When I saw that I was excited because I hated having two boxes anyway. However, after setting up the modem, I came to notice a lack of wireless-n, which even though it doesn't seem like a big deal, means that the antenna is too weak to reach all of my house. So I thought that this wouldn't be too much of a problem, I'd just hook up my old Linksys WRT160Nv2 which could reach through all of the house, and turn of the built in wireless of the modem. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to want to work that easily, as the internet works when connected with a wire to the modem, but not when connected to the router. Can anyone help me set this up?

TL;DR: How do I set up a wireless router in conjunction with a ZyXEL PK000Z?

EDIT: okay, so it seemed my problem was that I had the cable from the modem plugged into the WAN port of the router. Which still seems like it should be right to me, but I switched it to one of the four LAN ports and it works now.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 31 2011, 10:58 pm by omginbd.



None.

Aug 31 2011, 9:35 pm Lanthanide Post #2



It's hard to know where you've gone wrong, but:

1. Your WRT160Nv2 will need to be connected by wire to your ZyXEL PK000Z.
2. You should turn off the DHCP server (if any) on your WRT160Nv2 and turn on the DHCP server in ZyXEL PK000Z. You only want the IP addresses to be given out by your modem, not your wireless access point.

Confirm you've done those two things and we can take it from there.



None.

Aug 31 2011, 10:16 pm The Starport Post #3



Quote from Lanthanide
It's hard to know where you've gone wrong, but:

1. Your WRT160Nv2 will need to be connected by wire to your ZyXEL PK000Z.
2. You should turn off the DHCP server (if any) on your WRT160Nv2 and turn on the DHCP server in ZyXEL PK000Z. You only want the IP addresses to be given out by your modem, not your wireless access point.

Confirm you've done those two things and we can take it from there.
Wouldn't you want to do the opposite? That is, disable services on the modem and just force it to do it's main job...



None.

Aug 31 2011, 10:27 pm omginbd Post #4



Quote from Lanthanide
It's hard to know where you've gone wrong, but:

1. Your WRT160Nv2 will need to be connected by wire to your ZyXEL PK000Z.
2. You should turn off the DHCP server (if any) on your WRT160Nv2 and turn on the DHCP server in ZyXEL PK000Z. You only want the IP addresses to be given out by your modem, not your wireless access point.

Confirm you've done those two things and we can take it from there.

Yes, currently the WRT160Nv2 is plugged into the modem via Ethernet cable, and yes it is plugged into the "internet in" port on the wireless router. DHCP server is off on the router, but not the modem. However, I don't know what to set the static IP settings to in the setup page of the router.

Quote from name:Tuxedo-Templar
Wouldn't you want to do the opposite? That is, disable services on the modem and just force it to do it's main job...

This was my impression as well. I was thinking that the modem would only give out 1 ip address to the wireless router, then the router would manage ips by itself, as that is what people would connect to.

This topic can be locked now.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 31 2011, 10:58 pm by omginbd.



None.

Aug 31 2011, 11:08 pm Lanthanide Post #5



Right, I see you fixed it in the top description.

The WAN port on the access-point will be a separate layer 3 interface while the 4 switch ports will be on a common layer 2 interface. It should be possible, given the right finangling, to get it to work from the WAN port, but it's more hassle than it's worth if you can just use a switch port.

The reason to use DHCP on the quest modem is because all of your computers in the house must go through it to get to the internet. But if you use the wireless access point to give out DHCP IP addresses, a wired computer elsewhere in the network may not get an IP address because it was wired, not wireless.

In practice with a simple flat network, having the DHCP server on the wireless router should actually be fine (since DHCP works on broadcast messages that should reach everywhere in the network unless specifically designed not to). But logically the best place in your network for this to be, is on the modem. Also consider what you're more likely to replace: your wireless access point (buy a new one, add a new one), or your ISP modem?



None.

Aug 31 2011, 11:45 pm ShadowFlare Post #6



My network is probably run by more separate devices than most home users. I have my DSL modem (in bridged mode, not routed NAT mode - had to call my ISP to get that configured) with my router plugged into it (using WAN port on router). My router has an 8-port 1 Gbps switch plugged into the LAN port (my router has 1 WAN, 1 LAN, and another port for another network connection, which I'm not currently using). The switch has a 5-port 1 Gbps switch on a 50 foot cable and an N wireless access point plugged into it. That N wireless access point has another N wireless access point linked to it with WDS client mode. The second N wireless access point has a 5-port 100 Mbps switch plugged in and is not configured to allow wireless clients to connect to it, since the coverage is already just fine around the house. It is there just to link that 5-port switch to the network without a cable.

In total, that is 1 DSL modem, 1 router, 3 switches, and 2 wireless access points.



None.

Options
  Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[2026-7-18. : 2:27 am]
Symmetry -- https://staredit.net/topic/18903/ THE REVIEWS ARE HERE! "ok these are pretty good memes" - ssj9Kevin
[2026-7-17. : 2:58 pm]
Ultraviolet -- Symmetry
Symmetry shouted: Man I wish we had this tech back in the day when people played ums lmao
fr fr
[2026-7-17. : 2:39 am]
Symmetry -- Man I wish we had this tech back in the day when people played ums lmao
[2026-7-16. : 6:28 am]
NudeRaider -- EUD actions, specifically. The conditions remained. Today we can even have actions again, but they're all virtualized/whitelisted (not sure on the actual technical implementation) so you can only use them for specific intended purposed, not arbitrary code injections.
[2026-7-16. : 6:26 am]
NudeRaider -- I mean yes, maps - through EUDs - were theoretically able to do that as well, but that was patched quickly.
[2026-7-16. : 6:25 am]
NudeRaider -- Symmetry
Symmetry shouted: Ohhh imagine a SC map that could delete itself
not the map, the editor
[2026-7-16. : 2:28 am]
Symmetry -- I vaguely remember Voy doing some ACE back in the day, but I had no idea EUDs could do that kind of shit. I am very much catching up on the technology
[2026-7-16. : 2:28 am]
Symmetry -- Ohhh imagine a SC map that could delete itself
[2026-7-15. : 8:51 pm]
NudeRaider -- Symmetry
Symmetry shouted: NudeRaider Is EUD editor capable of writing shit onto the player's harddrive? That seems like it would be dangerous
yeah an editor that isn't allowed to write files sounds rather pointless, so I'd assume it can. Like most other programs too btw. and yes, obviously that's dangerous, but also kinda necessary. MS introduced that virtualization for exactly that reason.
[2026-7-15. : 4:10 am]
Ultraviolet -- I don't think so. I think they shut that shit down after 1.16, maybe even earlier
Please log in to shout.


Members Online: l)ark_ssj9kevin