# Networking issue, different subnets



## demisod (Aug 5, 2005)

Per a suggestion from the install forum, I am asking a network question here:

I recently moved into a new house, and it took me about a month to get internet service installed, which was yesterday. Directtv went ahead and installed at my house without internet. I have an HR34 with one client and an HR21 and HR23. Although there was no internet connection, whole home seemed to work and there was consolidated playlist available to the HR34 and the genie client.

The house is wired for a lan. At the HR34 location, there is a wall jack that is connected to a switch that feeds the tv/blue ray player and a/v receiver. As it turns out the guys that installed the tv and a/v equipment also connected the HR34 to the LAN via ethernet. As I understand it, this is not the correct way to connect to the internet for the HR34, but it seemed harmless at the time.

For reasons having to do with my ISP provider (sticking a router behind a router), I decided to change the subnet for my lan from 192.168.1.x to 192.168.2.x. Don't know if this was really needed, but I did it. After the internet was activated, I tested the HR34 and discovered it was not connecting. I noticed it's IP address was 192.168.1.3. I thought, ah, I just need to change the subnet to 192.168.2.x. So I did and the genie lost contact with the server. Rebooting the client didn't seem to help. Adding a client didn't work either (no prompt for the add code, just a "can't find server" screen). I changed the server's address back to what it was, rebooted everything and the client came back but whole home is not working. Recordings on the other DVRs don't show up and no other receivers show up at connected at the HR34. I checked the IP address on one of the other receivers and it is showing 192.168.2.xx. I would guess this is the problem.

I assume I need to get a tech out to install the supported internet connection kit, but is there was way to get the whole home setup back and working? The IP address for the server is listed as static. Is there a way to use DHCP which the client will pick up?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

I'm getting mixed up between "IP addresses" and "subnet".
I think right now is to reset the network defaults on all receivers and reboot each.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

I'm sort of surprised (as per what the TS stated in the other thread) the U-verse RG has no provision for bridging so you may use your own separate router instead of the integrated one in the RG.

So instead, AIUI, the TS configured the RG to place his separate router in the DMZ which has the HR34 and DECA coax network is connected to that router and it can't see the internet?


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Why do you need a second router? As I understand it, the uVerse RG isn't as bad as some of the DSL modem / routers.

The simpliest thing to do is disconnect your second router, set the first to 192.168.X.Y - typically 1.1 or whatever they want it to be.

Then reboot each DVR and test the network settings. The X number must be the same, the Y number unique to each device on the network.

If you want to use your second router as a wireless AP only, there are posts here about that or raise the question again once you get WH working again.

And the 34 can have an ethernet connection to replace a CCK or W-CCK (wireless). Just be sure you don't have both the 34 and a CCK connected to your router.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dennisj00 said:


> Why do you need a second router? As I understand it, the uVerse RG isn't as bad as some.


Having Uverse and one of their 2Wire routers, I too wonder why.


----------



## demisod (Aug 5, 2005)

HoTat2 said:


> I'm sort of surprised (as per what the TS stated in the other thread) the U-verse RG has no provision for bridging so you may use your own separate router instead of the integrated one in the RG.
> 
> So instead, AIUI, the TS configured the RG to place his separate router in the DMZ which has the HR34 and DECA coax network is connected to that router and it can't see the internet?


This is correct. The HR34 is connected via ethernet to the router that is placed in the DMZ. There is a C31 client, an HR21 and an HR23 connected in a whole house setup via coax. No other ethernet connections for the satellite equipment. Prior to the internet install, and prior to configuring the router to have a different subnet, I had powered the router up to look at its menus. I am guessing that is when the HR34 obtained its 192.168.1.xxx address. When the internet was installed I tried testing the HR34 and discovered it could not connect. I went in and manually updated the address to a 192.168.2.xxx on one of the network menus. That worked as far as the HR34 was concerned. It passed the connectivity test, but the genie client lost contact with it. The only way I found to get the genie to communicate with the HR34 was to restore the old address at the HR34. I guess the manual setting is why it's considered static.

I assume the thing to do, as someone else has noted, is to restore defaults and reboot everything. Is there a sequence for this? I am particularly worried about the genie not being able to contact the server. That caused it to throw up an error screen with no access to any menus for running setup.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

demisod said:


> I assume the thing to do, as someone else has noted, is to restore defaults and reboot everything. Is there a sequence for this? I am particularly worried about the genie not being able to contact the server. That caused it to throw up an error screen with no access to any menus for running setup.


Reset & reboot the Genie first.
Reset & reboot your receivers.
Check if the clients come up, and if not reboot each.


----------



## demisod (Aug 5, 2005)

dennisj00 said:


> Why do you need a second router? As I understand it, the uVerse RG isn't as bad as some of the DSL modem / routers.
> 
> The simpliest thing to do is disconnect your second router, set the first to 192.168.X.Y - typically 1.1 or whatever they want it to be.
> 
> ...


I don't really. I wanted to get internet via cable originally, and had gotten the router in anticipation of connecting to a cable modem. The router is an 802.11 ac router, which doesn't really matter now but I thought it would be a good idea for the future. Unfortunately, it turned out that cable service would not be available at my address for some time, so AT&T was a fallback position. Since I already had a better router than the gateway, I thought I would try using it. Maybe a bad idea.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

demisod said:


> I don't really. I wanted to get internet via cable originally, and had gotten the router in anticipation of connecting to a cable modem. The router is an 802.11 ac router, which doesn't really matter now but I thought it would be a good idea for the future. Unfortunately, it turned out that cable service would not be available at my address for some time, so AT&T was a fallback position. Since I already had a better router than the gateway, I thought I would try using it. Maybe a bad idea.


Maybe not "a bad idea", but when you do have problems like this, "it might be better" to go back to the simplest configuration and get everything working.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

demisod;3194076 said:


> I don't really. I wanted to get internet via cable originally, and had gotten the router in anticipation of connecting to a cable modem. The router is an 802.11 ac router, which doesn't really matter now but I thought it would be a good idea for the future. Unfortunately, it turned out that cable service would not be available at my address for some time, so AT&T was a fallback position. Since I already had a better router than the gateway, I thought I would try using it. Maybe a bad idea.


I also responded in your other thread before seeing you posted here.

As for the two routers, on your router, turn off DHCP and connect it to your main router to a port other than the WAN port on your router. You can then use your router for wireless, but the AT&T router will be used for DHCP.

Part of your issue is that you manually changed the IP address on the HR34. Generally, if you have to manually change the network settings on a DVR, that is not going to resolve an issue.

- Merg


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

two DHCP services in different subnets are not the issue; perhaps routing table is not build properly; perhaps it should be done manually


(when ppl driving cars, they need a license; when you build a network you should have some knowledge to handle such cases)


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Well said!! Two home routers in series are a problem waiting to happen, unless you know routers very well.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

dennisj00 said:


> Well said!! Two home routers in series are a problem waiting to happen, unless you know routers very well.


Yea ...

Unfortunately though after some reading on the issue, the TS's router-behind-router setup with one in the DMZ and both with DHCP turned on is the best method that can be done to establish a bridging functionality for the U-verse VDSL RG.

EDIT:

[strike]The TS is actually almost there. Its just the RVU clients seem not to be on the correct 2.xxx subnet as the HR34 is.

Perhaps the full reset recommended earlier of the HR34 server first followed by the clients will force them all to pull a 2.xxx IP address from the 802.11ac router and thereby place them all on the same subnet as they need to be.[/strike]


----------



## tgater (Jul 24, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Maybe not "a bad idea", but when you do have problems like this, "it might be better" to go back to the simplest configuration and get everything working.


2nd. Keep It Simple 1st. Get it working then document changes as you go along. This way as you add other routers and or devices into the mix to achieve your DMZ you can see what worked and what did not.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

From what VOS has told me, the C31 clients connect to the HR34 through yet a third subnet, using 169.xxx.xxx.xxx addresses. So, what we're looking to have is a 3 subnet system.

The AT&T router will supply the WAN connection using whatever IP address, gateway and network mask they specify. let's call the AT&T modem/router the "primary" router. Let's assume we set the primary router's LAN address to 192.168.1.1. Set the subnet mask to 255.255.255.0.

The other, or "secondary" router would then connect to primary router via an ethernet cable from the secondary router's WAN port to one of the LAN ports on the primary router. This will create two separate LAN segments.

Either let the secondary router get an IP address via DHCP from the primary router, or use a static address. In either case, the address should be in the same subnet as the primary router's LAN (e.g. 192.168.1.2 in this example).

Set the LAN address on the secondary router to a different subnet, e.g. 192.168.2.1 and the subnet mask to 255.255.255.0. The second router should use 192.168.1.1 (the primary router's LAN address) for both the default gateway and the DNS addresses.

Ensure that all devices are connected to the secondary router. There should be NOTHING connected to the primary router other than the WAN connection and the secondary router.

All of the devices should get their IP configuration via DHCP from the secondary router. They should get an address in the 192.168.2.xxx subnet, with 192.168.2.1 as their gateway and DNS.

Once everything is configured, shut everything off and restart, in the following sequence:

1) AT&T router/modem - wait unti all lights are green
2) Secondary router - wait until all lights are green
3) HR34 - wait until fully booted and programming is displayed
4) Other DVR and/or standard recievers
5) C31 clients

Once started, you can check the IP address of the DVRs to make sure they are configured correctly. You may also have to reset the C31 clients and reconnect them to the HR34.

This SHOULD work as desired. you will end up with 2 LAN segments (LAN1 existing only in the primary router ports) and 3 subnets. The 192.168.1.xxx subnet will be on LAN segment 1, and the 192.168.2.xxx and 169.xxx.xxx.xxx subnets will coexist on LAN segment 2.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

> the C31 clients connect to the HR34 through yet a third subnet, using 169.xxx.xxx.xxx addresses


perhaps if no DHCP service responding to requests for IP ? but coexist ? who have a sniffer to reveal the rumor ?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> perhaps if no DHCP service responding to requests for IP ? but coexist ? who have a sniffer to reveal the rumor ?


Older Genie & client firmware showed the 169.xxx IPs used by each.
Newer software only shows the MAC address of the client.
When a client goes to the searching for server screen, the Genie is shown with a 169.xxx IP [even with a DHCP server]


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Oh well ... 

Edited my former post.

Did not know the HR34-C31 IP pairing used the 169.254.xxx.xxx APIPA protocol.

Does anyone know if this applies to the RVU capable (Samsung) Smart TVs too? But then they would need two IP addresses wouldn't they? An APIPA one for RVU connectivity to the HR34 and of course a standard LAN 192.168.xxx.xxx one for the home network and internet connection.


----------



## demisod (Aug 5, 2005)

Resetting the HR34 network defaults, redoing network discovery and rebooting the DVRs seems to have solved the problem. The DVRs recognize each other, the playlist is back and the client is happy. 

I do have a much simpler question. Is an HR34 with an ethernet connection equivalent to a cinema connection kit? Both DVRs test as connected.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

demisod said:


> Resetting the HR34 network defaults, redoing network discovery and rebooting the DVRs seems to have solved the problem. The DVRs recognize each other, the playlist is back and the client is happy.


Glad to hear it. Its been somewhat of an education for me too. 



> ... I do have a much simpler question. Is an HR34 with an ethernet connection equivalent to a cinema connection kit? Both DVRs test as connected.


Yes, though many DIRECTV techs are unaware of this and in rare instances some have experienced problems using the HR34 for a CCK and have had to use a dedicated one.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

P Smith said:


> perhaps if no DHCP service responding to requests for IP ? but coexist ? who have a sniffer to reveal the rumor ?


I have a sniffer, and an HR34, but I don't have any RVU clients to check it out. I'm just trusting what VOS says.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

real old style one ? with IBM card ? or some current SW kind ? how you managing sniffing network with switches ?


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Wow...haven't seen a hardware sniffer in years and years. The one I have is software based. Switches aren't a problem, depending on what you are doing. In this case, the packets would pass through switches in the direction of the router, and you can connect the sniffer node with a hub, just in front of the router. You could also manually change the router table, but a lot of routers designed for the home don't let you do that.

But mostly these days a "sniffer" is useful for looking at packet structure for specific protocols rather than the addressing headers. It's not like the old days when you used them to analyze traffic and balance loads. The routers and switches have "solved" that problem.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> Oh well ...
> 
> Edited my former post.
> 
> ...


My thinking is that the RVU devices (non-Genie Clients) just use their regular IP address for connecting back to their server. As these devices are not contained on the DECA cloud, they need to have the regular IP address for the home network and Internet access as you mentioned. In the case of the Genie Clients, they are using the server for all access, hence why they can just have the APIPA address.

- Merg


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Diana C said:


> Wow...haven't seen a hardware sniffer in years and years. The one I have is software based. Switches aren't a problem, depending on what you are doing. In this case, the packets would pass through switches in the direction of the router, and you can connect the sniffer node with a hub, just in front of the router. You could also manually change the router table, but a lot of routers designed for the home don't let you do that.
> 
> But mostly these days a "sniffer" is useful for looking at packet structure for specific protocols rather than the addressing headers. It's not like the old days when you used them to analyze traffic and balance loads. The routers and switches have "solved" that problem.


[OT]
That time it does more then looking into addresses ... there was additional modules what analyzed problems with Layer 4+5, like Oracle client-server communication ... yeah, you can hardly use it for full strength now, but I keep 10 Mb hub for that (interesting if 100 Mb hub could be found?)
[/OT]


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

P Smith said:


> [OT]
> That time it does more then looking into addresses ... there was additional modules what analyzed problems with Layer 4+5, like Oracle client-server communication ... yeah, you can hardly use it for full strength now, but I keep 10 Mb hub for that (interesting if 100 Mb hub could be found?)
> [/OT]


Continuing the off topic conversation....

I have an old 8 port DLink 10/100 hub, and my boyfriend has a 3Com 24 port 10/100 hub in his office...but I doubt anyone makes them anymore.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Back to the double router problem. . . Diana has given a detailed configuration and even she says it 'SHOULD' work. But there are additional problems lurking in the shadows.

The Double NAT (Network Address Translation) of 2 routers in series causes additional problems. Unless the router has a true DMZ - few home routers do - there are problems with remote access and port forwarding.

Basically that means security cameras, remote desktop, slingboxes, Nest thermostats, won't work remotely without some additional fiddling and still possibly not at all. uPNP won't be so automatic anymore.

The class C addressing of a home router allows for 254 ip addresses / devices. Unless you need more, there's really no reason for a second router.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> The class C addressing of a home router allows for 254 ip addresses / devices. Unless you need more, there's really no reason for a second router.


To clarify... No need for a second router acting as DHCP server... Many people do use second routers, but as a switch or wireless access point...

- Merg


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

dennisj00 said:


> ... The class C addressing of a home router allows for 254 ip addresses / devices. * Unless you need more, there's really no reason for a second router.*


Well there is a valid reason here as the TS explained he wants to use his new 802.11ac router, but the U-verse modem/router RG strangely has no bridging option to disable its integrated router.

So the router-behind-router with the 802.11ac one placed in the DMZ of the first (the U-verse RG) is the best alternative to the proper setup of a router behind a true bridge to the VDSL modem which the RG won't do.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> Well there is a valid reason here as the TS explained he wants to use his new 802.11ac router, but the U-verse modem/router RG strangely has no bridging option to disable its integrated router.
> 
> So the router-behind-router with the 802.11ac one placed in the DMZ of the first (the U-verse RG) is the best alternative to the proper setup of a router behind a true bridge to the VDSL modem which the RG won't do.


I'm not sure which modem/router the TS has, but mine looks to have an option for another router:


----------



## Satchaser (Sep 23, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I'm not sure which modem/router the TS has, but mine looks to have an option for another router:
> View attachment 31483


I have Motorola NVG510 which does not allow router to be disabled and does not enable UPNP. In order to use Security Cameras with a hosted Website etc. I set up the NVG 510 to assign a single IP and set up IP passthrough to pass NVG WAN IP to my Netgear router. Then disabled Wireless. The Netgear is setup to do DHCP on a different subnet than the LAN address of the NVG510 and to handle wireless clients including repeaters etc. Finally I set up port forwarding on the Netgear router for the Security Cameras. Reboot the NVG modem/router then the Netgear then repeaters, and finally cameras and other clients.

There is some pretty good information on ATT UVerse forums if you combine the efforts of several posters.

I presently have full access to the Internet from all clients and remote access to my security cameras worldwide.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Yes, there are routers that can bridge or have a pass through setting / DMZ and the best workaround to use the better wireless is to disable DHCP and plug it in on the LAN side. It's not a router then, is it? But it works great as an additional access point.

The average home network user goes to BestBuy and probably buys the sale item and plugs it into whatever the ISP left them. He probably never visits the GUI and his email works.

I just don't want him to read these threads and not understand why something isn't working when he plugs his new gidget in 6 months from now.

The Directv installer and CSR certainly aren't prepared to troubleshoot.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

The other reason to use two routers is to provide local security. For example, use the primary router for "public" wireless and the secondary router for a secured wireless (obviously on different frequencies) with a firewall between them. Of course, the easier option is VLANs, but precious few home routers have that capability either.

The more I use it, the more impressed I am with the ASUS RT-N66U. It has multiple VLAN support, true DMZ, VPN host support, supports FTP, telnet, SSH, DLNA, iTunes, DDNS, can do BitTorrent (and other) downloads to a router attached USB drive with no PC attached, and has the best throughput and wireless range of any router I have seen. It's not cheap (in the $175 range) but it is the best home router I have ever used.


----------

