[FAQ] Using two routers together/ Extending Wi-Fi

Hi, mikevh

Firstly, let me congratulate you (and thank you) for producing such a comprehensive and yet succinct set of instructions for connecting up two routers in this way. Using just your first post, I was able to set up a system in my own home last week and it’s running perfectly.

I have one question for you, and this is not because I have any problems with my system, but just to educate me about how it all works:

I had assumed that, having switched off the DHCP on the secondary router, I would not be able to use the remaining three LAN ports on it, because devices attached to them would not be given IP addresses. However, I tried it out today, attaching a laptop to one of the ports and finding that that allowed it to have an internet connection (its Wi-Fi adapter had been switched off, so it must have been connected via ethernet). By logging onto my primary router, I was able to see that the laptop had, indeed, been given an IP address.

Having now read every post in this thread, I think I may have understood what is happening – is it basically what you say in the following quotation?

When a client device associated with either router, there's kind of a two step process. First, the "wi-fi" does it's thing and sets up up the network transport. Some people liken this to "plugging in the cable" in a physical switch. Once the network transport is up, the DHCP process in the client can start. It'll send out a "can I have an IP address" request (incidentally, addressed to all stations on the network - it's a broadcast,) which router 2 will fire out of all it's ethenet ports (like any other broadcast) including the one connected to router 1. On receipt of this, router 1's DHCP Server should answer and the replies head back by the reciprocal path. (It's a tad more complex than this, but not much.)

That is to say, my laptop "asked" my secondary router for an IP address, the router broadcast this request through all of its LAN ports, including that LAN port which is connected to my primary router, and so the request was received by my primary router. THE DHCP mechanism in the primary router was what was able to give my laptop an IP address. Am I understanding it correctly here?

Thanks again,

OPS
 
That's pretty much correct.

The way DHCP works is, when a client device requests an IP address, it doesn't request it from any particular device (DHCP Server,) it's a request sent out everywhere. Quite literally, it's a network broadcast to all stations saying "can someone out there give me an IP address."

So your client device attached to rtr2 isn't asking rtr2 (directly) to provide an IP address, the client is asking anything that happens to be listening, and that request ends up at rtr1 by deed of being re-propagated out the uplink connection between the routers (and all the other LAN ports and over Wi-Fi too.)

If we'd left the DHCP server in rtr2 turned on, when a client requests an IP address, (whichever router it was attached to) it would get a reply (called an offer) from both the DHCP Servers in rtr1 and rtr2. Thence the client has to choose which offer to accept, often the first one it receives, but it doesn't have to be. How to choose which offer to accept isn't prescribed in the standards.

This is why it gets messy with multiple DHCP servers - if the client picked an offer from the router without a WAN connection, it'd loose Internet connection (seamingly randomly) hence we advocate running only one DHCP Server in the Internet connected router.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

as I said in post 251, I set up two routers in this fashion a few weeks ago and they have been working like a dream.

I originally did it just to increase my wifi coverage, but it has opened my eyes to the benefits of networking my various appliances. In particular, I have started using DLNA - with files kept on a USB flash drive connected to my primary router and those files rendered at a "smart" TV. Three weeks ago I had never heard of DLNA, and I'm beginning to wish I never had, as it's taken up a huge amount of time trying to get it to work - but that's another story; the item that relates to this thread is not so much about the quirks of DLNA, but its security:

I have read that DLNA and UPnP (on which I believe DLNA is based) allow home networks to be easily hacked. I have therefore given some thought as to how I might continue to use DLNA (assuming that I can eventually get it to work satisfactorily), but also to minimise the risks to my fledgling network.

From other reading on the net, I seem to recall (and I have been unable to find that webpage again) that, if you set up two routers LAN to WAN (as opposed to LAN to LAN as I have it now), then you get two separate networks, with the secondary one being more resistant to hacking (because it is shielded by the first?). If this is true, it occurred to me that, were I to use a primary router/modem (with the wifi switched off) to connect to my ISP, and then connect LAN to WAN from that router to two secondary routers, with both of these secondary routers set with:-
- the same subnet
- different, fixed IP addresses,
- the same SSID,
- the same wifi security, and
- non-overlapping wifi channels,

would the two secondary routers then:

(1) be on the same network and able to exchange files
(2) allow wifi "roaming" as my current setup does
(3) be more resistant to hacking and therefore allow me to use DLNA with more peace of mind than I have now?

In effect, apart from the two secondary routers (and, of course, my ISP), I wouldn't connect anything to the primary router, so none of my actual computer/ TV/phones devices would join that primary (and less secure) network - they would all join the secondary (more secure) network via the two secondary routers.

Is this a good idea?
Would it improve the security of my network?
Am I right in worrying about DLNA security at all?
If it is a good idea, what would the detailed instructions to set it up be (a la the superb instructions in post 1 of this thread)?

Thanks in advance,

OPS
 
There's a lot to discuss there. I'll speak in general terms, but to avoid having to caveat lots of statements, I'll start out with a "super caveat" than I'm omitting lots of detail and cases for the sake of brevity. Even then, I suspect this still going to be a long post :D

In no particular order:

Router's join networks together, so routers behind routers is fine - it happens all over the place on the Internet and in big companies - however most SOHO routers lack all the facilities required to be "proper" routers because they are designed as simple "get you on the Internet" boxes.

It's the firewall in your SOHO router (and to a lesser degree the NAT translator) that stops hacking. If you think about network sessions like phone calls - a device "dials the number" of it's target, sets up a two way traffic flow, exchanges data for a bit then hangs up. The firewall in your router effectively allows outbound calls initiation to all numbers, but blocks all inbound calls. To allow an inbound call on a particular port, you have to create one of the legendary "port forwarding" rules to permit the inbound connection.

uPNP is a mechanism that (amongst other things) allow devices to set up port forwarding rules automatically. If your router lacks uPNP, or you turn it off, then the only port forwards you will have are those you create manually.

Each port forward avails a hackable entity (it's called a "threat vector" amongst security poeple) and obviously the more of them you create, the more risks you are taking and vice-versa of course.

Each network in an IP LAN (often called a "subnet") must have a unique IP address range. The routers ("proper" routers) maintain tables of network addresses and instructions on how to send traffic to them. Theses are called routes. So the routing table might say for example 192.168.1.0 is reached through interface 5, 10.11.0.0 is reached through interface 3, etc. etc. Thusly, it's hopefully obvious that we cannot have more than one network with the same IP address without "breaking" the routing process. Or we have to do funky things with NAT to translate IP addresses from one thing to another.

Each IP Subnet (LAN) is also called a "broadcast domain." Any device that sends a network broadcast - data sent to all stations - can expect it to reach all stations on the subnet. Network broadcasts are not propagated across routers. So for example, in a simple infrastructure with two networks (subnets) separated by a router, broadcast traffic on network A is not propagated across the router to network B and vice-versa.

I'm not aware of any particular vulnerabilities availed by DLNA, but it's not my field of expertise. However, IMS, DLNA relies on broadcast traffic for a lot of is functionality. So your DLNA clients and servers need to be with the same subnet/broadcast domain in order to "discover" and "talk" to each other.

So your plan has a few problems:

Let's call your subnets greenA, greenB, Orange and Red. Red is the Internet, Orange is the subnet "inside" your ISP facing router and the two greens and "inside" your "inner" routers. Incidentally, it's one of the ways we build "proper" DMZ's in corporate networks.

Red---rtr1---orange---rtr2/3---green(s)

You cannot use the same IP ranges in all subnets - they would need to differ or be NAT'd across WAN-LAN boundaries. Most SOHO routers NAT and often you cannot turn it off. So in your proposed scheme, NAT translation occurs at the WAN-LAN boundary between the two green subnets and orange meaning that devices on the two green networks (literally) cannot see each other and devices on the orange network cannot "see" any devices on the green networks.

Broadcast traffic on any of your subnets is not propagated across any routing boundary, which will (I suspect) break DLNA amongst other mechanisms.

As any wi-fi clients roam between your two green routers, they will have to do a DHCP exchange to grab IP addresses each roam which may make roaming take a little longer.

So, with the right routers (ones that allow NAT to be turned off and the creations of your own routing table entries) your scheme is do-able. However, it's more complex and (IMHO) offers little in terms of improved security and causes more problems than it solves.

I'd stick with the usual "simple" SOHO model of one router protecting you from the Internet and one simple "flat"subnet for all your local devices.

If you are concerned about external hacking and probing, then ensure your ISP facing router has a firewall (most have, many won't let you turn it off,) NAT (which "masks" your local devices IP addresses, again most SOHO routers NAT and it often can't be turned off) don't set up any port forwards and turn off uPNP in your ISP facing router (if it has it, not all do.)

I'll have to do some research into DLNA vulnerabilities, but if you can provide any links it would be useful.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, mickevh, for that information. I think that one of the problems with doing your own research into things is that you don't get the wider picture, and your "stand back and look at the whole scene stance" is really useful to get some perspective.

Initially, I didn't understand something in your post - the bit about routers connecting networks - "but I've got two routers and only one network...", I thought, and then I remembered that, by virtue of having switched off some of the functions on my secondary router (like DHCP), I have essentially, made it act no longer as a router, but merely a switch (and a WiFi access point) - am I right in assessing it that way?

it's more complex and (IMHO) offers little in terms of improved security and causes more problems than it solves.

I'd stick with the usual "simple" SOHO model of one router protecting you from the Internet and one simple "flat"subnet for all your local devices.
That's fine - I'll go with that.

ensure your ISP facing router has a firewall
Yes, both of my "routers" have the capacity to have a firewall.

NAT (which "masks" your local devices IP addresses, again most SOHO routers NAT and it often can't be turned off)
the secondary router definitely has NAT, but I can't see any mention of it in the administrative pages of the primary router.

turn off uPNP in your ISP facing router
Both of them have the capacity to use or to turn off UPnP.

So, looking at the above characteristics of the two routers, it would probably better to change them around so that the one which is currently the secondary becomes the primary, since it definitely has NAT. I'm quite happy to go ahead and make that change, and I'll probably do that this weekend.

I'm not aware of any particular vulnerabilities availed by DLNA, but it's not my field of expertise.

I'll have to do some research into DLNA vulnerabilities, but if you can provide any links it would be useful.

The site where I learned about the DLNA security issue is:
Millions of PCs exposed through network bugs, security researchers find | ZDNet
It may well be that I've got the wrong end of the stick here, and its not something I should be unduly worried about, but, being a newcomer to networking, I'd rather do things right at the outset.

Thanks again for your advice - its much appreciated that you take the time out to explain things in such a comprehensive way to ignorami like myself.

OPS
 
...I thought, and then I remembered that, by virtue of having switched off some of the functions on my secondary router (like DHCP), I have essentially, made it act no longer as a router, but merely a switch (and a WiFi access point) - am I right in assessing it that way?

I think if you have a look at the block diagram I've pinned to the first post, you'll see that the ethernet switch built in to your router is "inside" the routing engine, NAT, firewall etc.The only time any traffic gets "routed" in the proper IP sense is if it's passing between the WAN and any of the LAN ports or Wi-Fi AP (and vice-versa.) Any traffic passing between the LAN ports (or ethernet to Wi-Fi) doesn't hit the routing engine/NAT/Firewall etc.

So it's not disabling DHCP in and of itself the stops the router "routing" - it's that we've connected it up in such a way that traffic doesn't pass through the routing engine.

Disabling DHCP on the secondary routers stops those DHCP servers handing out IP addresses which indicate that the secondary router's routing engine is the "default gateway."

...the secondary router definitely has NAT, but I can't see any mention of it in the administrative pages of the primary router.

It's so taken for granted in SOHO routers, that it doesn't surprise me it's not explicitly mentioned. Likewise the firewall. If your internal IP addresses are 192.168.something, 10.something or 172.something then you can pretty much assume your router does NAT between LAN and WAN. SOHO routers have to NAT because of the global shortage of public IP addresses.


If you disable uPNP (or your router simply doesn't have it) then I don't think it's too big a deal. You could always try out the scanner indicated in the white paper.

Ultimately, any connection to the Internet presents security risk. Ultimately it's a risk versus reward value judgement. Most of us find the Internet far to useful to simply not use it in the same way most of us find cars just too useful to not use them because of the risk of accident.

Whilst one shouldn't be complacent and take sensible precautions, the technology is fairly robust. By way of example, almost no-one outside China (it seems) would dream of running Windows without any anti-virus, but millions of people use phones, tablets, Mac's and NAS devices without any A/V without a care in the world because they perceive them to be "safe." Whilst a lot of those device don't have viruses of their own, (or at least many fewer of them than Windows) they are all capable of storing and transmitting infected payload, but hardly anyone pays them any attention compared to Windows.
 
Last edited:
Any traffic passing between the LAN ports (or ethernet to Wi-Fi) doesn't hit the routing engine/NAT/Firewall etc.
Ok - that makes that clear.

If your internal IP addresses are 192.168.something
They are - so I'll assume that my router does NAT, although it doesn't mention it in the admin pages.
This makes both my primary router and secondary router about equal in terms of their security capabilities - each has a firewall, NAT, and each has the ability to turn off uPNP. On that basis, it doesn't matter which I use as the primary and which as the secondary... but for one factor: only one of the routers (the one currently being used as the primary) has a USB port (to which I have connected my flash drive with music/films on) - obviously if I turn off the uPNP on this one, I lose the ability to use DLNA. So, in order to do as you suggested, ie
turn off uPNP in your ISP facing router
,
I'll have to swap them around after all.

I don't think it's too big a deal
That is comforting. As I said in my last post, if you research things on the net and you don't have a guide/mentor to tell you what is important and what is not, you have no way of gaining any perspective on what you read. I was in the position of having set up a DLNA system a week before, and then suddenly being confronted by a website which suggested that DLNA was going to expose me to all sorts of nasties...

Thanks again for being a surrogate guide/mentor.

OPS
 
First all thanks the lot to everyone on this post as reading up until this point has enlightened me in many ways.

I hope no-one will mind if I throw my particular setup into the mix for a bit of advice.

I have:
1) Sky Wifi/Router/Modem hooked up to their Fibre Service. (wifi turned off)
2) Apple airport extreme in Bridge mode wiith Wan port connected to Sky router above. This is my main Wifi access point that covers most of the house. I also have a music server, a sonos bridge and a couple of back up drives hard connected for music and time machine backups for various machines. Also connected a TPLink power line extender.
3) TP Link AV200 Wifi AP in one remote corner of the house connecting via power lines back to the Airport router.

I'm not a total novice and the above set up for the most part runs perfectly but I have one issue with the Wifi network created by the TP Link box. I initially configured both SSIDs of the Airport and the TP Link to create one seamless network. This worked from the point of view of simple internet access however whenever connecting via the TP Link box devices were effectively segregated from my Sonos bridge. So if I was sitting in one room of the house and tried to control Sonos I simply couldn't see it. As a work around I changed the TP Link SSID to a unique name so at least I can identify when I am on the wrong network for Sonos but as you can imagine this is a bit annoying as you have to manually switch wifi networks from time to time.

Any ideas what I am doing wrong?
 
I should add that I tried plugging the TP extender directly into the Sky router/modem instead of the airport and it doesn't appear to make any difference.
 
The terminology and explanations used in what bits of the thread I've read go way over my head so I'll just ask a simple (stupid) q that's probably already been answered :)

I've got Sky broadband and have wired connections going to TV, Sky etc in my front room. The wifi signal I think is pretty poor throughout the upstairs area - so much so that the free extender they supplied me with is equally poor with black spots still occurring.

I have an upstairs phone point near the main black spot. Can I not plug something into this to get the same internet connection as what comes in via the master socket?
 
...Can I not plug something into this to get the same internet connection as what comes in via the master socket?

No - you cannot connect more than one modem (be it a stand alone modem or the one built into your router) to the phone line.

If Sky's "extender" thing is a repeater (picks up wi-fi transmissions, waits for the airwaves to go quiet, then broadcasts a copy of the original transmission) the physical positioning of the repeater is important: It needs to be "in range" of a good signal from both the router and the coverage hole.

So this : rtr----repeater----hole
not this: rtr--------repeater-hole

However, repeaters clobber the throughput (speed) so if speed is you thing, repeaters are best avoided.
 
No - you cannot connect more than one modem (be it a stand alone modem or the one built into your router) to the phone line.

If Sky's "extender" thing is a repeater (picks up wi-fi transmissions, waits for the airwaves to go quiet, then broadcasts a copy of the original transmission) the physical positioning of the repeater is important: It needs to be "in range" of a good signal from both the router and the coverage hole.

So this : rtr----repeater----hole
not this: rtr--------repeater-hole

However, repeaters clobber the throughput (speed) so if speed is you thing, repeaters are best avoided.

Thanks I've tried positioning the extender in 3 different locations but with little joy of a full signal.

Nothing else on the market as a potential solution then?
 
No silver bullets I'm afraid. Wi-Fi transmit power is limited by law and most kit is, and always has been, at or close to the permitted max. The solution to Wi-Fi signal woes is to get the communicating entities closer together and in practical terms that mean putting up more AP's closer to the clients. The "trick" is in establishing the "back haul" link between the AP's. A "proper" ethernet cabled link is best, tunnelled over the mains using HomePlugs is (probably) next best, Wi-FI if you reallly have to, but as you've discovered Wi-Fi backhaul links suffers all the same problems as Wi-Fi client links.
 
Doesn't sounds like anything particularly wrong. Can you "ping" the SONOS box from when connected to both AP's. Using a Windows/Mac/Linux PC, open up a command windows, PING A.B.C.D where "A.B.C.D" is the IP address of your SONOS and see if it responds.
 
Hello

I've got Sky Fibre, and two Sky routers (I'll call the second an access point). I've set the address of the AP 192.168.0.2 and disabled DHCP.

The two routers have unique names (SSID) and passwords, and have Channel set to Auto.

To enable seamless wifi, should I simply make the names (SSID) the same, and the passwords the same? And should I leave Channel on Auto, or pick a random number for each?

I wouldn't mind having a third access point, due to house layout and thick walls etc. I have spare routers from Netgear and TP link etc - should I be able to use those with my Sky ones, should I get another Sky one, or should I buy one of those wifi boosters (which I presume do the same thing)?

And finally - when I connected my access point to the main router via a hub, it didn't work. I had to make the connection direct between the two. This could be a problem if I add more access points, so can it work through a hub or a switch?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
To enable seamless wifi, should I simply make the names (SSID) the same, and the passwords the same? And should I leave Channel on Auto, or pick a random number for each?

Make all the Wi-Fi settings as similar as possible except the radio channels which should differ and be "5 apart" in the 2.4GHz band (e.g.,1,6,11) and just "different" in the 5GHz band if you have dual band routers, e.g. 36,44,52 etc. I usually advise not to use "auto" channel settings in SOHO gear as they could end up spending all their time flipping channels trying to "avoid" each other - SOHO gear normally doesn't caloborate.

Note that it's the client devices that decide if/when to roam between hotspots, not the routers/AP's. Wi-fi myth number 2 is that client devices are always "hunting for the strongest signal" - in fact there's good reasons that they don't. Some clients will let you set the "roaming aggressiveness" (My Windows box has such a setting) but if not, you're in the gift of the device designer as to if/when they roam. For example, my "work" laptop will hang on to a working link not matter have "bad" (slow) it gets - it almost has to loose connection completely before it roams.

I wouldn't mind having a third access point, due to house layout and thick walls etc. I have spare routers from Netgear and TP link etc - should I be able to use those with my Sky ones, should I get another Sky one, or should I buy one of those wifi boosters (which I presume do the same thing)?

SOHO AP's/routers don't "talk" to each other in any meaningful way, so you should be able to use anything with anything.

And finally - when I connected my access point to the main router via a hub, it didn't work. I had to make the connection direct between the two. This could be a problem if I add more access points, so can it work through a hub or a switch?

if your "hub" is actually an ethernet switch is shouldn't make any difference (ethernet "hubs" and "switches" are actually slightly different things, but hubs are really rare these days - you have to go out of your way to find a hub.) The traffic to/from your AP's is bog standard ethernet same as all other traffic - your hub/switch won't (can't) distinguish between traffic that originated or is destined for a Wi-Fi client and anything else.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the advice, much appreciated.
Make all the Wi-Fi settings as similar as possible except the radio channels which should differ and be "5 apart" in the 2.4GHz band (e.g.,1,6,11) and just "different" in the 5GHz band if you have dual band routers, e.g. 36,44,52 etc. I usually advise not to use "auto" channel settings in SOHO gear as they could end up spending all their time flipping channels trying to "avoid" each other - SOHO gear normally doesn't caloborate.
It seems the Sky routers/hubs are 2.4GHz single band, so I'll go for 1, 6, 11, thanks.

Note that it's the client devices that decide if/when to roam between hotspots, not the routers/AP's. Wi-fi myth number 2 is that client devices are always "hunting for the strongest signal" - in fact there's good reasons that they don't. Some clients will let you set the "roaming aggressiveness" (My Windows box has such a setting) but if not, you're in the gift of the device designer as to if/when they roam. For example, my "work" laptop will hang on to a working link not matter have "bad" (slow) it gets - it almost has to loose connection completely before it roams.
Useful, thanks. So even with the same SSID and password, they'll only talk to one router/access point at a time, due to the different channel? It will mainly be iPads and Android tablets, I've no idea when they'll look for a stronger signal.

SOHO AP's/routers don't "talk" to each other in any meaningful way, so you should be able to use anything with anything.
Perfect.

if your "hub" is actually an ethernet switch is shouldn't make any difference (ethernet "hubs" and "switches" are actually slightly different things, but hubs are really rare these days - you have to go out of your way to find a hub.) The traffic to/from your AP's is bog standard ethernet same as all other traffic - your hub/switch won't (can't) distinguish between traffic that originated or is destined for a Wi-Fi client and anything else.
Yeah I know they're different, mine is an old 24 port hub. For some reason it didn't work when I connected the 2nd Sky router via the hub?

EDIT - Update
It looks as though I'll be wanting a new wireless access point, as the Sky Hub2 is a bit rubbish compared to the alternatives. Should I keep the Sky router as the modem, and link that to the access points, or get a replacement router too? And any recommendations?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Useful, thanks. So even with the same SSID and password, they'll only talk to one router/access point at a time, due to the different channel? It will mainly be iPads and Android tablets, I've no idea when they'll look for a stronger signal.

Wi-Fi clients are only ever Associated (to use the technical term) - talking to - one AP at a time. It's not to do with the radio channels, just how wi-fi works.

Yeah I know they're different, mine is an old 24 port hub. For some reason it didn't work when I connected the 2nd Sky router via the hub?

Blimey, how old is it? I suppose if it's really ancient you might have some issues with duplex mis-match or maybe cable crossing (MDI versus MDI-X.) Ah the good old days - most modern kit does it all for you automatically. Generally and ethernet link either works or it doesn't - it's really unusually for it to "pick on" one type of traffic - you usually have to pay lots to get that type of functionality.

EDIT - Update
It looks as though I'll be wanting a new wireless access point, as the Sky Hub2 is a bit rubbish compared to the alternatives. Should I keep the Sky router as the modem, and link that to the access points, or get a replacement router too? And any recommendations?

You need to maintain a "router" somewhere between your network and the ISP - you can't do it with a modem and AP's only - you need the NAT in the route. Take a look at the block diagram I pinned on post one. Even if you "throw away" the Wi-Fi AP in your ISP connected router, you still need the NAT, firewall, router, etc. between you and the ISP. And if your ISP router has a Wi-Fi AP built in, (I would argue,) you may as well use it unless you have some kind of pathological hatred of it. However "bad" you perceive it to be, it's still providing some level of service in it's own locale. Spend the money "fixing" everywhere else.
 
Last edited:
Blimey, how old is it?
I don't know, it's a while. It's a Puredata pdc8023ua-24 plus. If access points don't need anything complex, then I imagine I had another gremlin when I was testing it through the hub, and that gremlin went when I took out the hub.

You need to maintain a "router" somewhere between your network and the ISP - you can't do it with a modem ans AP's only - you need the NAT in the route.
Yes, sorry, I know it needs to be more than just a modem, but it doesn't need to have wifi.

And if your ISP router has a Wi-Fi AP built in, (I would argue,) you may as well use it unless you have some kind of pathological hatred of it. However "bad" you perceive it to be, it's still providing some level of service in it's own locale. Spend the money "fixing" everywhere else.
That makes sense. The reason I considered removing it is from reading advice online, and I think that's in situations where others have the latest iPhone and iPad etc with 802.11ac, which would do better with the wifi of your ISP's router off, so your devices use the better speed of newer ones.

Thanks
 
Guys,

Please help with this, setup is below

Conservatory - Kitchen - Living Room

In my conservatory I have a virgin media super hub which has home plugs connected to it which go to the homeplug in my living room.

I have a Cisco router attached to the homeplug in my living room which is directly below my bedroom.

I can access my virgin media hub from my bedroom but the quality is poor as you can imagine.

So the issue, I can surf the web perfectly via the Cisco router below my bedroom perfectly via phone, ipad, laptop etc etc with no issues at all.

But the problem is my boxee box (media player) and also amazon fire stick can access the router below my bedroom but are getting no internet signal at all.

I assume this is an issue with my Cisco router and was hoping somebody could point me in the right direction.

Thanks in advance.
 
How are your devices obtaining their IP addresses..?
Can I draw your attention to post #1 in this thread - particularly the part about ensuring you only have a single DHCP Server active in your network.
 
Last edited:
I`m back again after 2 years of having my network working perfectly with it secondary router.

In a few weeks time we will be changing from Talktalk to BT fibre broadband. Will I need to change the settings on my secondary Netgear router to enable it to work with the BT router.

Back in post #120 I said the words below (in red) but after 2 years I`ve forgotten what I even meant by this. If I need to change anything how do I get access to the Netgear. Am I best resetting it (if needs be) and starting again

******EDIT***** All sorted. I didn`t realise I then had to plug the secondary router into the primary and then access the secondary through the network
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom