Routers / Switches :: Adding A Wireless Conection To Existing Network
Dec 22, 2011
Add wireless conection that can't see network. I have an existing working hard wired network. I want to add a wireless connection that has access to the internet, but not to the other devices on the original network.
I have a Airnet 1600 Series that I want to add as another repeater to our 1200 series 802.11g network. We already have 2 AP's running fine as Repeater and BR, I just need to a this 1600 AP to the existing wirelss. Everytime I try to change the 1600ap as a repeater, I get the below error.
cannot set role in radio network to when another radio is set to one of the above roles
Added a wireless router to our office here so that people with laptops could get on the net without having to physically plug in. Right now it is ok, but the router is acting as it's own DHCP server instead of our server here assigning out the IP's.
The main gripe I have is I can only login to the router through my phone and not through my computer. How can I achieve this. We have multiple offices that all connect through a VPN. I would like our sys admin to access the router at his location as well.
Do I just turn off DHCP on the router and thats it? The model is Netgear WNDR4500.
I have to add a 2960s PoE switch to an existing stack of two 2960s PoE switches. If The new switch has no configuration on it and the existing stack is broken by pulling te stack cables and then new cables are added and everything re-cabled correctly will the new switch assume the configuration from the stack without any issues?
I have an existing wireless network using a Cisco/Linksys WRT400N wireless router (which in turn is connected to a cable internet provider). I need to extend my wireless coverage and so purchased a Cisco/Linksys E1000 to act as an additional access point. Purchased from BB, the local 'geek squad' rep instructed me to follow the users guide for the set up. After login into the admin service on my E1000, I followed the 'Advanced Routing' instructions and disabled the 'NAT' option and subsequently enabled the 'Dynamic Routing (RIP)' option. Everything worked like a charm to this point, but now I'm stuck. What steps do I need to follow to allow clients to log onto my wirelss network via the E1000 (secondary access point)? I've established WEP security keys on the WRT400N (primary access point) and want to use the same network security parameters on the E1000.
I am somewhat of a neophyte at networking and I have a question. I have a small business network using a secure wireless router connected to my cable modem. We have a DVR security system which we would like to monitor remotely. I would like to keep the DVR separate from my secure wireless router for security reasons. My thought is to connect the DVR through a cable or wired modem into my cable modem. Do you folks think this will cause an issue with the wireless router which uses DHCP to determine the IP address?
Here's the deal. My internet provider provided me with a shitty router with a lot of settings locked. I can't change DHCP settings or add custom static IP addresses. This sucks. The wireless function on it sucks also.I added an extra router to the network so I have good Wifi in my living room. I turned off the NAT, firewall and DHCP on that one, so it's a simple switch with a wireless access point now.Now here's the deal. The DHCP server of the provider's router hands out IP's from 192.168.2.1 to 192.168.2.253 (192.168.2.254 is the router's own IP address).I gave the added switch/access point the IP address 192.168.1.1 in its own settings. The original router doesn't 'see' the switch now anymore because it's out of the DHCP's range. When I gave it an IP address within the DHCP's IP range, I got all kinds of conflicts (as expected).
I guess this is a solution since it works, but I'm open to other suggestions since it doesn't seem to be the best way of doing things. Besides, I can't access the access point's web interface anymore since it doesn't have an IP address within the network now. It isn't important because I don't need to change any settings anymore, but still.I'm going to add a second wireless router to replace the built-in wireless function of the provider's router. For some reason it sees its own wireless network as a separate network or something. When I roam from the new access point wifi to the provider router's wifi, everything gets confused because it tries to give the laptop a new IP address.
I currently have a wired network which starts with a cable router downstairs which is a virgin media netgear box with firewall and DHCP turned on. I have a NAS server and a smart tv which run off ethernet connections to this router.then have a cable run upstairs to a TPlink gigabit switch which is connected to a PC and a printer (in my study). All this works just fine, no configuration needed.I have a TPlink wireless router, a TL-WR743ND. I want to use this to connect to the switch upstairs (not downstairs - my stone walls limit any wireless access point) to provide wireless network coverage for my house.So I figured I should configure it with a dynamic IP address (ie it gets it from the netgear DHCP), turn off the TPLink's DHCP and firewall, and then any wireless devices attached to the TPLink by wireless should have access to printer and NAS
My ISP comes in via phone line to modem then to wireless router.I want to run 200' direct burial line to WAP so that I can access wireless internet at the far point. I have modem and wireless router. what do I need to do the create the distant wireless access?
My wife has a home office with her office computer connected to our modem via a cisco router. Our home computer is connected via this router as well. I want to add a wireless router (netgear) so I can use my laptop anywhere in the house.
Moblie WLAN range 192.168.1.0/24.Default Gateway: 192.168.1.1 - Firewall..Next available range to add more addresses are 192.168.11.0/24..Current range is having IP address issues..I have seen a feature in 4402 controller that I can assigne second address range to exisgint SSID Mobile.What should I set the default gateway for 192.168.11.0/24 range?How can I point all mobile users traffic to the firewall as default gateway without creating additional interface on the firewall?I really do not want to create another vlan and interface in the network to just add another 255 addresses if tehre is any option?
I currently have 1 cat 5 jack at my tv/entertainment area and will be needing additional jacks to add gaming consoles,streaming video player and internet ready tv at the same location.The current jack installed at that location is coming from a D-Link 8 port Gigabit switch installed in a different room.The switch is at capacity,all ports are full,so no additional availability there.My question is how to expand port availability at the entertainment area.Is it possible to put another switch or hub at that connection?Would there be a conflict with cascading a switch from one to another? I have a 25 meg fiber optic incoming service,so there is plenty of speed and bandwith available to handle these componets.
We have an existing network with a Catalyst 4510 core switch and departmental 3560 switches connected via fiber. Due to company restructure we can no longer afford to buy new 3560's when anything goes wrong so this week I purchased an SG200-26 which I'm trying to get onto the network.
This is a legacy network which I didn't setup so my Cisco skills are somewhat limited (another reason for the SG200's hopefully), anyway have been looking at the configs on the existing switches and trying to match settings in the SG200 setup however not getting anywhere! I have the config from the dead switch so I can show what needs to be achieved, any experience in downgrading environment in a similar way?
We currently have out T1 attached to a 5505. We have IPsec site to site tunnels that also terminate on the outside interface of the 5505.
We are getting rid of the T1 and bringing in a manged MPLS circuit which will run off of a 1841 ISR. I would like the 5505 to pretty much work as is with little change. Whats the easiest way to accomplish this? Of course the MPLS will come with new external IP.
Current Design ---> T1<------>[asa5505]<------->[LAN] New design---------> Mpls<-------><------>[asa 5505]<------->[LAN]
1. Whats the easiest way to drop in the 1841 without having to change all my ASA acl's.
2. How would I terminate my ipsec site to site tunnels on asa outside interface. Now that the WAN interface is on 1841 and not ASA how would I terminate the other side of tunnel? Can I leave my tunnel end points on ASA or do they now have to terminate on 1841?
3. How would I configue outside interface on ASA to communicate out 1841 MPLS?
I have a working 3800 router which runs on bgp pretty well. Existing setup has 2 serial ports for the bgp and 1 gigabit port for the LAN.Now, i want to add another 3800 as a standby router making it clustered - ACTIVE/STANDBY via hsrp protocol.
1.) What are the implications in adding another 3800. Do i need to reconfigure the ip addresses on my serial? or just the LAN
2.) Are there any additional requirements like firmware versions etc?
I need your input on how to appropriately introduce an N5K with Jumbo enanbled to a prexisting Core Network (Stack of Cisco 3750G Switches) without making any major alteration on the Core configs (everything is happy). The idea is to move two High I/O servers to the N5K during a transitional phase. I already have a fair understanding of what Jumbo-Frames are and what it does. Keep Jumbo-Frames within the N5K ONLY.
- Traffic is Data traffic, not storage/iSCSI - The servers host our ERP applications and MySQL that is accessed heavily by users - N5K to C3750G connectivity is a Port-Channel consisting of 4x1GB ports - The servers are to remain on VLAN 2 (Data VLAN) - The Core Switch is L3 and the boundaries reside here
we have 2xNexus model 7010 (let's call them Nexus1 and Nexus2) connected via VPC to a couple of catalyst 6509 switch.Trunking has been enabled on the port-channel defined on both Nexus allowing some vlans.Below the config applied on both port-channel interfaces on both Nexus which are members of the same VPC number: [code]
supposing I'd need to remove some vlans from that trunk (e.g. vlan 100,200 and 300) using command "switchport trunk allowed vlan remove 100,200,300" and that I'll run that command on Nexus at a time (that means there'll be a condition for a short period of time where Nexus1 has removed vlan 100,200 and 300 from the trunk, while Nexus2 is still carrying those 3 vlans on its port-channel which is a VPC member) , could it cause any VPC inconsistency condition suspending VPC interfaces and therefore affecting the service for all remaining Vlans or only Vlan 100, 200 and 300 will be suspended when that condition will be detected?
We have a Cisco 3845 router for Site 2 Site VPN tunnels to external business partners. The IOS is (C3845-ADVIPSERVICESK9-M), Version 12.4(15)T8.One of our partners is doing a DR test and needs to have us swing the VPN traffic to another peer in a test location temporarily. I plan on adding the test hosts to our existing encryption ACL, but instead of building another crypto map, I was wondering if I can add a secondary peer to the existing one?
I need to add two additional 2960S switches to my stack. I saw a diagram that showed how a 4 switch stack can be connected, but I couldn't find much detail on adding a switch to an existing stack (besides master election). The output below shows how the existing stack is connected and its state
SW#sh switch detail Switch/Stack Mac Address : 0011.2222.3333 H/W Current
I will need to break one of the stack rings between SW1 and SW2 in order to connect the new switches. Does it really matter which ring I break to connect the additional switches? Does one ring act as primary? If so, I'd rather not break that ring so this process is transparent as possible. Also, is there any benefit to disabling the stack port vs just disconnecting the cable?
I have a 3750 stack as our core switch. On the core switch I have 2 VLANs. One VLAN is for WAN and one is for LAN. The WAN VLAN has our internet router, and the outside interfaces of two ASA's set up as failover. The LAN VLAN has everything else, including our MPLS router for the remote offices. Execs are cheap and want to increase internet bandwidth by purchasing a local home internet service like COX or Time Warner cable to add to our Business internet service with TelePacific which is a bonded T1 at 3 meg. Execs dont seem to care about SLA's and simply will not spend big dollars to increase the pipe. I was looking at those Mushroom Networks appliances but its too expensive for us also. Any way to add additional low cost bandwidth with out current setup? Maybe prefer to keep important internet traffic to the SLA circuit, and then put low priority traffic to the cheap non SLA cable modem if possible.
I have an E1000 router and recently moved to a basement apartment where the only internet access comes from a single Ethernet cable running out of a router upstairs. I can connect to that network (it is family) but ideally I would like to connect my router and create a second network so that I can connect my printer and other devices independently of the upstairs network.
I have looked on notes to add a switch to an existing stack and haven’t identified answers on how the IOS will be affected on the new switch – will it downgrade to the current stack version or will the current stack upgrade to its version. At this moment in time I would prefer if the new switch IOS downgraded to the current stack IOS version.The new switch is a 3750V2 – will this affect how it joins the stack?The new switch has the image of IPBASEK9-M – again will this affect how it joins the stack?
I am having an issue with adding a c3750x switch to an existing switch stack Currently there is 2 x WS-C3750X-48P and I am trying to add another WS-C3750X-48P to this switch I have cabled the switch to the stack using the stack cables and added the command to provision the switch on the exisitng stack. However when I turn the switch on it just goes on its own stack.
I noticed the new switch had a later version of IOS so have downgraded this to the same version as the other switches but still no joy Here is the sh ver from the exisitng stack
uptime is 4 weeks, 4 days, 23 hours, 30 minutes System image file is "flash:/c3750e-universalk9-mz.122-53.SE2/c3750e-universalk9-mz.122-53.SE2.bin" License Level: ipbaseLicense Type: PermanentNext reload license Level: ipbase cisco WS-C3750X-48P (PowerPC405) processor (revision A0) with 262144K bytes of memory.Processor board ID FDO1448Z0FJLast reset from power-on21 Virtual Ethernet interfaces1 FastEthernet interface156 Gigabit Ethernet interfaces6 Ten Gigabit Ethernet interfacesThe password-recovery mechanism is enabled.
I am attempting to add and Catalyst 3750 - 12 port Gigabit switch to an existing stack of 3750 48 port switches (non-X fabric). I am not sure how to proceed. These are the two questions/thoughts I have. Any additional perspective I should have before proceeding.
What kind of configuration should I apply to the Gig switch before adding it to the stack?I am sure I will need to assign priority to the new switch, ideally, it will act as master.
I need to tear down an existing port-channel on a 3750X running c3750e-universalk9-mz.150-1.SE3.bin. This port channel is currently down down. It has three ports in it that will be added one each to three existing port-channels, I am assuming as long as the "channel-group" command is exactly the same as it is on the three existing port-channels I should be ok just adding the new port. One point to note is that the three existing port-channels all have three ports so this will be adding the fourth port to each port-channel. I know after reading that it is a best practice for load balancing to use either 2, 4, or 8 ports for a port-channel. Also what is the command to see all ports that are in a port channel?
current topology is build from 4 6500 switches connected in a ring topology. Using Port channel (2x 10Gbit) links to connect left side top and bottom 6500's (DC1), 10 G bit link to connect right side 6500's (DC2) In between a 1 G bit link is used to connect top 6500's (DC1-DC2) and the same for bottom 6500's (DC1-DC2).
Path costs are 5 and 6 so the T5/4 from bottom right is blocking. Bandwidth demands are increasing, so thinking about adding extra 1 G bit links to the existing ones and create ether channels. Path costs here are 4 and 5, so T5/4 from bottom right is still blocking, but when the bottom 2 G bit port-channel is loosing one 1 G bit link the path costs of both directions become equal. So I am worried that STP will not re converge and leave me with a congested 1 G bit link. I cannot test this setup in a lab, are there any options for STP to re-converge here?