Router to Router?

[TheGreatSatan]

I have 2 computers upstairs and two for the kids downstairs. I used to have the coax cable split and have one modem with a router up and another modem with a router down. Charter is cracking down and I'm no longer allowed to have two modems in the same house because of the 2 separate IP addresses.

Here's the question. Can I have one line come out of the router upstairs, travel 200 feet and go into the input of the router downstairs where it'll be split between the two computer down there??

I would rather run one line down there to the router instead of one to each PC (two total). It's between 100 and 200 feet away from the systems upstairs and I just don't have the cable/patience to do it.

I will not use wireless, because it is sooo slow when broadcasted that far.

So can I use one line, or will I HAVE to use two?

[OvRiDe]

You will only need to run 1 line. Running 2 routers IS possible but can cause some problems unless the secondary router is configured properly. Depending on the make of the router you could set it into bridged mode, or possibly just be able to use the switched ports of the secondary router.

I would recommend just using a basic 10/100 switch downstairs. They can be pretty inexpensive these days, and it could take alot of guess work out of setting up dual routers.

Basically you would just need to run a single line from one of the switch ports on the router to the uplink port on the new switch. The single router will handle all of the dhcp, nat, and routing.

Something like this should work just fine.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833166034

As long as the line running to the switch is less then 300 feet your fine. If needed you can run another 300 feet from the switch to additional PC's.

[billygoat333]

It will work, just make sure only one router has DHCP turned on. otherwise, it will do some pretty funky stuff and wont work very well, if at all :D

[slaveofconvention]

Do you actually need the pcs on the network to see each other? Another possibility would be to run a cable from the internet connected router to the WAN port on the second router. THe pc's connected to each router would be able to see the other PCs connected to that same router, but not the pcs connected to the other router. The second router would basically just see the first one as the internet connection. If you used this method you wouldnt have to worry about configuration changes or if the router is capable of bridging - you'd have two totally seperate networks and each router would do it's usual job, the only difference is the net connected one would be treating the second one a client PC, and the second one would be treating the net connected one as the internet itself....

[OvRiDe]

You could definitely hook it up the way SoC described. The main issue is the computers connected to the secondary router will be double NATed. For basic http traffic is should be just fine, but other applications such as messengers, games, VoiP and file transfer programs could have major problems. Also in some cases anything that is done over SSL may fail as well since it could perceive the secondary NAT as a man in the middle attack.

Honestly I still believe the 8 dollar switch from Newegg is the simplest and most direct way of doing it and will cause the least amount issues.

[slaveofconvention]

No doubt - OvRiDe is bang on the button correct, I was just offering a possible solution without any new hardware :p

[TheGreatSatan]

I'm not network savy, but all a switch does is extend your network? Is it esentiially a CAT5 splitter? So one line from the router to the switch and one line to each PC from there? Is it all plug and play or do I have to set something else up?

Networking, for me is a HUGE pain, so the easier plug and play would be wonderful.

[SgtM]

You could definitely hook it up the way SoC described. The main issue is the computers connected to the secondary router will be double NATed. For basic http traffic is should be just fine, but other applications such as messengers, games, VoiP and file transfer programs could have major problems. Also in some cases anything that is done over SSL may fail as well since it could perceive the secondary NAT as a man in the middle attack.

Honestly I still believe the 8 dollar switch from Newegg is the simplest and most direct way of doing it and will cause the least amount issues.

This is what I would do.

However, if you just wanted to use 2 routers and not buy any new gear, you could take a lan connection from the router that you have connected to the modem, connect it to the wan port on the second router, and have a second network altogether. Make sure you change the default IP scheme from 192.168.1.x to 192.168.2.x. The subnet would still be 255.255.255.0 (simple class C) for both networks. What you end up with is 2 separate broadcast domains.

[TheGreatSatan]

Changing schemes is not plug and play so I know I wouldn't be able to figure it out. I think I'll just pick up a 5 port Gigabit Switch

[slaveofconvention]

Yeah there is no configuration to do - it's as complicated as using a power strip - plug one end into the source (router) and the remaining plugs go to the two pcs, leaving 2 spare. The only possible problem, and this is unlikely, is you MIGHT have to go into the router settings and tell it to allow 2 hops instead of 1 when it comes to automatic port forwarding for uPnP but to be honest, this is usually set to about 3 by default. I did have to do this once, but I have router - switch - switch - access point - device so the initial 3 wasn't enough - chances are you wont have to change a thing other than physically connecting everything

[TheGreatSatan]

I bought the D-Link 5 port Gigabit switch (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833127083&cm_re=d_link_5_port-_-33-127-083-_-Product) and 100 feet of CAT6

[Drum Thumper]

Good plan. I was going to ask for some specifics on the routers--if you by chance were running a pair of wireless routers, you could have set up one of them to be a repeater AP. That's pretty straightforward.