two networks, two computers want to see eachother.

[capr]

Hey guys so the situation is i got 2 routers and they got different computers connected to them.

Router A has computer x connected to it. computer x has IP 192.168.0.4

Router B has computer y connected to it. computer y has IP 192.168.1.5

neither of these routers are connected to the internet so a VPN wouldn't work (not the way I know how to do it).

each router has 4 ethernet ports and 1 incoming wlan/internet port. I am thinking I can just connect an ethernet cable from router A's output ports to router B's incoming port. then the computers will kinda be on the same mother network so they will be able to see each other.

will this work? will they be able to ping each other? do I need to do any kind of port forwarding to get it to work?

thanks,

RK

[Rigby]

I'm really confused as to what you're wanting to do here. Why are you using two routers?

[capr]

  On 08/09/2010 at 21:37, TRC said:

I'm really confused as to what you're wanting to do here. Why are you using two routers?

what can I clarify? two computers two different networks how do I make them see each other?

it doesn't matter why I have two different routers there are many reasons why i may need this signal strength being one example.

[+BudMan MVC]

Yeah if neither of the routers have internet access -- just use one of them..

If you need the extra ports, then just turn off the dhcp server on one of the routers.. And then like you said connect the routers together via the lan ports. Now all your machines will get its IP from the 1 router that has dhcp still on and will be on the same network.

Or since you do not have any internet connections on these routers, and have no use of gateway or dns, etc. You can just setup static IPs on your machines to put them all on the same network. Say 192.168.2.0/24

computer A

IP 192.168.2.1

mask 255.255.255.0

gateway : nothing

dns : nothing

computer b

IP 192.168.2.2

mask 255.255.255.0

gateway: nothing

dns: nothing

computer C

192.168.2.3-254

mask 255.255.255.0

gateway: nothing

dns: nothing

But its easier to just turn off the dhcp server on one of the routers.

edit: now depending on the features of your routers.. You could use them as actual routers vs gateways as well.. But to be honest this would be just making it more complex for no reason I can see.. Its easier to just have all the machines on the same network -- btw.. If you want to be able to access the routers gui, just change its IP to be on the same network as your router your leaving the dhcp on.

So for example

router A 192.168.0.1, dhcp on 192.168.1.0.100 to 150

router B, change its IP to 192.168.0.2 turn off its dhcp server.. Now you will be able to access its gui for wireless configuration, etc.

edit2: BTW if you really want to go the routing method, let us know the make and model numbers of your routers and can tell you how to do that as well.. But its way more complicated then just turning off one of their dhcp servers and changing the others lan IP to be on the others network.

Edited September 8, 2010 by BudMan

[Rigby]

  On 08/09/2010 at 21:43, capr said:

what can I clarify? two computers two different networks how do I make them see each other?

it doesn't matter why I have two different routers there are many reasons why i may need this signal strength being one example.

Didn't mean any offense, it just sounded like an overly complicated way of connecting two computers so I was asking for more info.

[capr]

thanks budman as always you are very helpful. the two routers are in reality pretty far apart and are parts of a complicated network. we wanted to simulate the real world network as west we could and run some tests for which the computers had to ping each other.

ended up bridging them together with a 3rd computer problem is solved.

[offroadaaron]

The information provided by the OP is clearly not even close to enough to work at what they are trying to actually complete by this task and therefore no one on here would be able to really provide the correct solution.

[+John Teacake MVC]

  On 09/09/2010 at 07:33, offroadaaron said:

The information provided by the OP is clearly not even close to enough to work at what they are trying to actually complete by this task and therefore no one on here would be able to really provide the correct solution.

QFT

[+BudMan MVC]

"are parts of a complicated network"

So these are not soho type routers?? Then with offroad, you did not give enough info for anyone to give the correct solution.

"Bridging" is not really a correct solution either.. If you have computers on 2 different networks which you clearly stated you did -- bridging them does not mean they can talk to each other. Do you mean you setup this 3 computer was used as a router? Not a bridge.

[offroadaaron]

  On 09/09/2010 at 11:53, Sawyer12 said:

QFT

This is a correct statement, we need more information and when asked for more information the OP is hesitant in conveying this to us. Are you saying that you can figure out what the OP needs by the information he has provided, if so then please teach me oh mighty one.

I have no idea how bridging them in a complicated network would actually provide the solution? Doesn't sound like a completed network to me as generally you would need to have routes for each network subnet.

[+BudMan MVC]

QFT - "Quoted For Truth"

He was agreeing with you there offRoad ;)

I also don't understand how a bridge between 2 different address spaces would solve anything? Maybe his mask was not the standard 24 bits you would see with a 192.168 address, maybe they are on a /23 (255.255.254.0) then those 2 addresses would be on the same network - so a bridge would work.

[capr]

I am not very involved with the project so I am not exactly sure on the details and that's why i couldn't provide more information. the team working on it "simplified" it for me and asked for my help with this little thing. I gave them several solutions that I thought may work and they rejected a bunch because of them since they can't physically touch the computers.

what they did is use a computer with two network cards and connected it to both networks and bridge the connections inside windows. this somehow worked out and they were happy.

[xendrome]

Point to Point VPN?

[offroadaaron]

  On 11/09/2010 at 18:06, xendrome said:

Point to Point VPN?

Shouldn't need a VPN should only need routes so it can route from one network to another.

[+BudMan MVC]

  Quote

Router A has computer x connected to it. computer x has IP 192.168.0.4

Router B has computer y connected to it. computer y has IP 192.168.1.5

Well the common masks with those networks you pointed out would be 24 bit.. So bridging them together would accomplish NOTHING!!! Since they are not going to freaking talk to each other. So unless the mask is at least /23 bit bridging those networks would not be what you need.. You would NEED to route..

What I find frustrating with these types of posts -- is if your not involved with the project, and don't have the details -- WTF you bringing it to us for.. Why don't you have the people that have the details of what you need ask!!

[offroadaaron]

  On 12/09/2010 at 01:27, BudMan said:

Well the common masks with those networks you pointed out would be 24 bit.. So bridging them together would accomplish NOTHING!!! Since they are not going to freaking talk to each other. So unless the mask is at least /23 bit bridging those networks would not be what you need.. You would NEED to route..

This is correct bridging is just like using a Normal switch or bridge that cannot route between networks!

  On 12/09/2010 at 01:27, BudMan said:

What I find frustrating with these types of posts -- is if your not involved with the project, and don't have the details -- WTF you bringing it to us for.. Why don't you have the people that have the details of what you need ask!!

You've changed budman, quoting people now! Good work!

I have to agree, how do you expect a forum to help you out when you've provided minimal information and not really involved with this network change.

[rajputwarrior]

  On 11/09/2010 at 18:06, xendrome said:

Point to Point VPN?

that was my first thought too

[offroadaaron]

  On 12/09/2010 at 01:38, rajputwarrior said:

that was my first thought too

Wouldn't it be site-to-site VPN for one, you could use vpn but it doesn't look like it would be needed here as both networks are local.