RV 120w ethernet port static VLAN assignment

I have a rv 120w with vlan enabled and default vlan which is on our corporate lan and dhcp disabled and a second vlan for a public wireless network with dhcp enabled. I can tag the 4 external ethernet ports with either vlan but how do I assign a port to the acual vlan so that devices connected to that port will be on the public vlan rather than the default? Tagged or untagged all 4 ports are on the corporate lan/vlan.
Thanks
George

Hi, My name is Eric Moyers. I am a Network Support Engineer in the Cisco Small Business Support Center. Thank you for using the Cisco Community Post Forums.
First let me apologoze that you have not been contacted before now. I have done some research and reviewed the case that you currently have opened with our Level 2 support (620535517). You are correct until that is fixed, the rest of your configuration is mute.
To answer your questions though:
1) How should port 3 be configured on the RV 120W to allow a proper trunk connection between the WAP4410N, bridge 1, to the WAP4410N, bridge 2?
A) See Below
2) How should the port 2 be configured on the RV 120W for the dumb switch that should be VLAN 100 only?
A) See Below
3) Why must you have a single untagged VLAN for each port, no more, no less? The untagged VLAN is the Native Port or Management VLAN
A) For a trunk to work properly that untagged VLAN has to be there.
4) Do you see anything horribly wrong with my proposed course of action?
A)Not as it stands, but would need to fully test once rest of network is up and running.
Port VLANs Table
Port   Name
Mode
PVID
VLAN   Membership
Port   1
Trunk
1
1u,   2t, 100t
Port   2
Access
100
100t
Port   3
Trunk
1
1u,   2t, 100t
Port   4
Trunk
1
1u,   2t, 100t
Thanks
Eric Moyers
Cisco Network Support Engineer
SBSC Wireless and Surveillance SME
CCNA, CCNA-Wireless
1-866-606-1866

Similar Messages

ACE4710: ¿ can´t I assign IP address to a physical Ethernet port?

Hello team.
I suspect I will receive a "no" as the answer, but I would appreciate confirmation anyway
My customer wants each ACE4710 (of a highly available cluster) to have its own, dedicated port for management purposes.
According to documentation, IP addressing can be applied to VLAN interfaces, so in order to satisfy the requirement, I should make one port belong to an "access VLAN X", and then apply IP addressing to the corresponding "interface VLAN X". This should satisfy my customer´s requirement in an indirect way.
But... ¿ Can´t I just configure IP address on one of the 4 ethernet ports in order to save the work of building the aforementioned VLAN? I am asking this since I do not have access to a real box in order to verify.
Your kind answers will be greatly appreciated.
Regards, Rogelio (Argentina)

Hi ROgelio,
You are right there is no way to assign IP address to physical interface.
ace-4710-1/Admin(config)# int gigabitEthernet 1/1
ace-4710-1/Admin(config-if)# ip ?
% invalid command
cdn-ace-4710-1/Admin(config-if)# ?
Interface config commands:
carrier-delay Set port up delay value
channel-group Map physical port to port channel
description    Interface specific description
do             EXEC command
duplex         Configure duplex operation
end            Exit from configure mode
exit           Exit from this submode
ft-port        Make physical port specific for Fault Tolerance(FT)
no             Negate a command or set its defaults
qos            Configure QoS operation
shutdown       Shut down the interface
speed          Configure speed operation
switchport     Set switching mode characteristics
So there is no option to configure an IP address on physical interface.
regards,
Ajay Kumar

SG 300-10 . Mapping fiber to ethernet ports (vlans?)...

Hi,
the incoming fiber on ports 9 and 10 are on different subnets. I need to map the subnet on port 9 to ethernet ports 1-9 and port 10 is on its own. I have the device IPv4 address set to a static address on the same subnet as port 9. I don't know if there's an easier approach, but I attempted to map the ports using vlans (please see the attached screenshots). We don't yet have the fiber link established for port 10, so I haven't had a chance to test, but I wanted to confirm that my configuration is sound. I used the default vlan for ports 1-9, because I need to manage through that subnet. I added vlan 10 for port 10, but I don't know if I have it configured correctly... Please advise. Thanks..!

Hi Greg,
Fiber ethernet is most likely running at 1000Mbits/sec and any Copper Ethernet interfaces on the switch runs at 1000Mbit/sec. personally the only differentiation I make between the copper or fiber are the distances they can run.
I love your screen captures it shows me that ports 1-9 are untagged in VLAN 1 (default VLAN) and port 10 is untagged in VLAN 10.
It tells me that both fiber runs are running untagged Ethernet frames on both fiber runs.
You have associated a IP address onto VLAN1 so you can manage the switch.
but the next question is;
What are you trying to achieve ?
regards Dave

Configuring the time capsule airport wlan function as "connect to wlan", the time caspule gets a correct IP adress from the other wlans IP range, but does not assign this to the ethernet ports. With Airport Express it worked!

Configuring the time capsule airport wlan function as "connect to wlan", the time capsule gets a correct IP adress from the other wlans IP range, but does not assign this to the ethernet ports. With Airport express it worked, the single Ethernet port got the IP Parameters passed through!
My setup is a Vodafon Esaybox connected to ISP. Time Capsule is not able to extend the wlan of the easybox, neither airport express can do.
Only the option "connect to wlan" is succesful.
With airport express I was able to connect my Sony Bravia TV to the lan via ethernet to stream pictures, the TV set got an IP adress from the easybox.
With the time capsule the easybox dosn't find devices connected to the ethernet ports to submit IP adresses. The TV set get another IP adress (169.xxx.x.x.) in subnet mask 255.255.0.0 and I don not now where from.
My notebook is a MacBook pro.
Any idea????
Thank a lot in advance!
Kind regards
Ingo

Neverthe less, could there be the chance, that this feature could be implemnented with an firmware update?
That would appear to be a question for Apple to answer. You can make suggestions to Apple here:
Apple - AirPort Extreme - Feedback
If the AirPort Extreme and Time Capsule are configured to "extend a wireless network" they will provide additional wireless coverage....and...the Ethernet ports are enabled in this type of setup.
The "catch" here is that you must have an Apple router providing the network to be extended.

IAS dot1x dynamic VLAN assignment not working

I have a windows 2003 server with AD and IAS configured. IAS uses AD for authentication. I have AAA login configured and working. I have AAA dot1x configured on the 3550 switch. IAS has a Wired Ethernet policy configured for PEAM and is send back attributes tunnel-type = VLAN, tunnel-medium-type = 802, and tunnel-pvt-group-id = 210. My XP supplicant has dot1x enabled and is authenticating through the switch and IAS.
Using Ethereal I can see the both the Radius request and accept packets. I can see that radius is sending the above attributes through ethereal as well. Using the Debug Radius command I can see that the attributes are getting to the switch. When I use the show VLAN command the switch port is still in VLAN 1. I want it to be in VLAN 210.
I have upgraded the IOS in the 3550 switch. This fixed a previous problem of the switch not sending the NAS port type of Ethernet. It as sending a port type of Asynch.
I also have service pack 2 on the Windows 2003 server.
Has anyone else had this problem? If so how do I fix it.
Here is my debug code:
06:56:45: RADIUS: Tunnel-Medium-Type [65] 6 00:ALL_802 [6]
06:56:45: RADIUS: Tunnel-Private-Group[81] 5 "210"
06:56:45: RADIUS: Tunnel-Type [64] 6 00:VLAN [13]
Here is my switch code:
aaa new-model
aaa authentication login default group radius local
aaa authentication dot1x default group radius local
aaa session-id common
interface FastEthernet0/1
switchport mode access
dot1x pae authenticator
dot1x port-control auto
radius-server host 10.1.1.254 auth-port 1645 acct-port 1646 key test
radius-server deadtime 60

You're missing this:
aaa authorization network default group radius
I assume "everything works" other than VLAN-Assignment itself.
This should get you squared away,

WoL over 802.1X with Vlan Assignement

Hello
I have a switch 3560, and an ACS v4
In phase of test i have an infrastructure with 802.1X PEAP with automatic VLAN assignation by the ACS according to the Machine.
My question is:
it possible to implement Wake One Lan on 802.1x with a assigantion of vlan not statics (i.e. without use of command Switchport access vlan XXX)
PS: if I do in statics the VLAN on a port Wake one Lan work without Pb with 802.1X

Ok, on interface 0/19 :
Switchport mode access
speed 100
duplex Full
dot1x pae authenticator
dot1x port-control auto
dot1x control-direction in
spanning-tree portfast
The software use is like "wolcmd" with configuration of
MAC address of the PC
IP of the PC (give by DHCP reservation)
Subnet mask
Remote port Number : 7
The authentication on ACS work fine and on ACS whe have this field
[064] Tunnel-Type
value : VLAN
[065] Tunnel-Medium-Type
Value : 802.
[Tunnel-Private-Group-ID]
Value : 69
In fact, the only difference between config is assignation static or dynamic of VLAN
I don't know if this what you wan't
thanks

Presales: HWIC-4ESW= on 2821 to increase Ethernet port?

Hi there,
I was not able to receive help from Cisco partner and distributor so I'm hoping that I'll get response from here.
We have CISCO2821-V3PN/K9 whose two Gigabit ports are already used. I need additional Ethernet port to connect the router to the Internet Leased Line.
Below "appears to be" the right product but the module is a switch which to my understanding is meant for connecting to the inside LAN rather than to the Internet.
HWIC-4ESW= Four port 10/100 Ethernet switch interface card
Grateful if someone could shed some light and give me the right product (part no.) we need to buy.
Thanks in advance.
Archie

Hello Archie,
a configuration for a VLAN on your 2821 would look like this:
interface Vlan2
ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
You can assign that VLAN, 2 in this case, to one of the switchports, just like you would assign it to a ´normal´, or better, external switch:
interface FastEthernte0/1/0
switchport access vlan 2
Here is a link that provides information regarding VLANs in conjunction with the HWIC:
How to Configure EtherSwitch HWICs
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6350/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a00804554c7.html#wp1027188
For more general information regarding VLANs, chekc this document:
Creating and Maintaining VLANs
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps646/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a00800c9fd8.html
HTH,
GP

WRT-54GL: DSL Modem won't work in Internet port, but works in other ethernet ports. Help?

To begin, IP addresses for ALL devices on my network are static and manually assigned, no DHCP, in case that matters at all. My problem is that when I plug my DSL modem into the Internet port on the back of my router it doesn't even see the modem and obviously I can't get on the internet. However, I can plug the modem into any of the other Ethernet ports on the router and it sees the modem just fine and I can use the internet. I don't quite understand this. It hasn't caused any problems at all, but I find it strange. This problem has existed with both the stock firmware as well as Tomato firmware. What can I do to get my modem to work through the Internet port instead of the regular ethernet ports? Please take into consideration that I am using the latest Tomato firmware. Thanks all!

Press the reset button on the router for 30 seconds. The Power light will start flashing. Turn the Router and the Modem OFF. Turn the modem ON first, wait for 10 seconds, turn the router ON, wait for 10 seconds, you should be ONLINE !!!
C | EH
linksyshelp.blogspot.com

Using separate ethernet ports for LAN and internet

Following scenario:
A couple of Lion clients and a Lion server connected to a switch. Switch connected to router for internet access. All devices, clients, server and router are in the same C-Class net.
I'd like to connect the Lion server with 2 ethernet ports to the switch, so that one port is solely used for connections to the Lion clients (aka LAN) and the other port is solely used for connections to the internet. That way heavy LAN traffic to/from the server cannot bog down internet access to the server. Any ideas how to acomplish that?
Usually you would configure the Lion server as a router and connect the Lion clients (via a switch) to one port and the cable modem to the other, so both ports are in different subnets. But I don't want all internet traffic from the clients going through the Lion server.
The best I've come up so far was to configure both ethernet ports with static IP addresses. The one connecting to the clients with a 255.255.255.0 netmask but no router IP given. The one for internet with a 255.255.255.255 netmask and the router IP set to my physical router IP. It seems to work, but I'm not sure, whether this is the suggested way to do such a setup.
Maybe some manual editing of the routing table is are more solid solution?
Any tips appreciated.
Pete

What you want to do can be done but maybe not the way you are trying.
First yes, you would use two Etherner ports on the Mac, if it is a Mac Pro or XServe it has two built-in, other Mac models can do this using a USB Ethernet interface.
Next, the way I would normally do this is to have a separate switch for the WAN router, this would make the setup look like the following
LAN Switch ----- Server ------------ Router --- Internet
       | |                             |
       | |                            NAT
       | +-----------------------------+
       |
       +------ Client Devices
The router could be doing NAT via one interface, or a separate Firewall box could do the NAT.
Another possible way would involve segmenting the lan switch by setting up a VLAN and putting one port for the Servers second Ethernet connection on to that VLAN (using public IP addresses and the a connection to the router on that VLAN, the LAN switch could then route between the two VLANs. Cheaper LAN switches do not have this ability.

The three gigabit ethernet ports:

Do the three 1000Base-T ports form a switch, managed switch, transparent bridge, or a bus (Hub)? If capable of switching at layer two what standards are manageable? I am wondering if Vlan and Trunking (IEEE 802.1Q) is supported as well as common spanning-tree protocol IEEE 802.1D.

Kmann wrote:
Thank you for your reply. My questions concern layer two functionality. Specifically IEEE 802.1q Vlans and VTP. Since ServerX supports dot1Q I was curious if these interfaces could be assigned vlan membership. I was at the apple store yestrday and I did not think to ask.
There is nothing in the Airport utility management interface to suggest either support for VLANs or trunking. Actually, trunking seems fairly silly on a 3/1 port hub, so even if it were possible, it likely be a waste of time to implement it (after all, any trunk of two would have to uplink either to the 1 WAN port or up the remaining 1 LAN port).
As for VLANs, that could be more useful, but again, there is no ability to manage that -- not in terms of either segregating ports into VLANs nor trunking mulitple 802.1q tagged VLAN down a single port -- even if it's possible on the switch. Again, I'd imagine few users would make use of this function, so even if possible, it'd be a low implementation priority. Especially, since OSX VLAN implementation is very, very crippled (e.g. seems like neither DNS nor mDNS works in OSX VLANs -- see http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5425126).
Probably a better question would be is whether the switch/ports can even handle the 1524 byte frame size to handle 802.1q VLAN and/or QoS tags. Probably, the best you could hope for is that the switch just pass along tagged frames as is. Hopefully, it would at least pass on QoS information.
One thing you should know about the AEBS and its gig ethernet ports is anytime you make a MINOR configuration change (like say, adding a user to the airdisk rights), it REBOOTS taking the ethernet ports down along with it -- and whatever connectivity the hosts connected to it have.
For a more full featured inexpensive gigE switch, you might look at the Linksys SRW2008/SRW2016/SRW2024 -- those do VLANs, 802.1q, and trunking.

XServe G5 - hardware indicates both ethernet ports are working; software only sees one

XServe G5
System Profiler only sees one ethernet port: en0
Server Monitor (Tiger) also only sees en0
But when cables are plugged into both ports, both green link lights come on, and both show blue activity lights.
Whichever switch (Cisco catalyst 2960) is connected to en0 (lower port) works fine; whichever is connected to the second (upper) port does not actually deliver any data to computers attached to that switch, they cannot see the server even though the switch indicates that something (the server) is attached to it.
I know the bottom ethernet port has to be connected first, and then the upper, and I did that. I have restarted the server.
Only the bottom port has ever been used on this server and I'm trying to use the upper one for the first time, do I need to configure it somehow? The manual is extremely minimal and doesn't mention anything about needing to manually configure it.
Thanks.

To start with the basics did you go into System Preferences > Networking and activate and assign a static IP to the second interface or did you do some other set-up?
=Tod

RT: How do I use two independent Ethernet ports?

I have looked around at the forums and seems like no one has had a real solid answer or example on how to use 2 Ethernet ports with RT.
Right now I have two connections configured on the RT:
Primary Connection:
IP:192.168.2.181
Subnet mask: 255.255.255.0
Gateway: 192.168.1.1
DNS Server: 192.168.1.1
Secondary Connection:
IP:192.168.1.180
Subnet mask: 255.255.255.0
Gateway: 192.168.1.1
DNS Server: 192.168.1.1
After using this initial setup, I made a RT project where I used 'UDP Open' for both 192.168.2.181 and 192.168.1.180, and had them both read and write in a sequence (Read and Write for the 2.181 connection, then Read/Write for 1.180).
The computer I'm using to send the data is connected to a switch, which in turn is connected to the RT. Both the RT and my host computer have 2 ports, one of them with ports configured to be 192.168.2.x and 192.168.1.x
Using this configuration I get some weird results:
If I send a packet to 192.168.2.181, I receive it from the UDP Receive vi that has an input connection from my UDP Open assigned to 1.180. I also receive the data the same way when sending packets to 1.180 (as expected). Basicly, no matter what IP I'm sending it to on the RT, the data from either packet will arrive from the same location/vi.
Why is this? Is there anyway to fix this? Did I not configure something correctly?
Does anyone have an example of dual Ethernet ports actually working with LabView RT?
I tried checking out "KnowledgeBase 3VQ6278T: Can I Use Multiple Network Adapters in a PXI or Desktop Real-Time System?", but after following the link to the page, I get:
"Error You are not authorized to view this document". Can any NI people look into this?
Having to make two IPs with different subnet masks obviously just makes things unnecessarily complicated. Can anyone tell me why LabView/NI did this? I know for a fact this isn't a limitation in hardware.
Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

Hey Weizbox.
Sorry to hear you're having such a difficult time using multiple ethernet devices with RT.
Let me go ahead and get the easy stuff out of the way, the link you
have is dead because it's archived (and thus removed forever) though
unfortunately the link on ni.com wasn't corrected to point to the
following resource, which the KB was a word-for-word duplication of
(which is supposedly why it was removed):
http://zone.ni.com/reference/en-XX/help/370622C-01/lvrthelp/configuringdual/
Unfortunately, though, it's much less useful than it sounds.
Before you start feeling like a woodpecker in a petrified forest, lemme
fill you in on why the requirement is there for the two ethernet NICs
to be on seperate subnets. Simple enough, it has to do with the
network stack on both of the operating systems used for LabVIEW
Real-Time - however, the same falls true for even Windows (without
using fancy vendor-specific drivers), so let's not be too hasty.
Neither PharLap ETS nor VxWorks, the two OS's used under the hood,
support redundant network ports. Because of this, if you give two (or
more in the case of PXI and RT Desktop) ethernet devices IP addresses
on the same subnet the routing tables in the network stack get horribly
confused and literally cannot resolve the proper adapter, which either
brings down the ethernet on the entire system or makes it such that one
or more network adapters becomes useless and one adapter takes over all
network traffic (there's no way to predict which adapter that will be,
nor can you control it based on what's plugged in and what's not). On
Windows this is handled by bridging the adapters, but RT does not yet
support bridging (that opens a whole nother can of worms). Long story
short, you still wouldn't be able to give both NICs individual IP
addresses on the same subnet.
Let's take that even one more step. You cannot simply just assign both
ethernet NICs different IP addresses on "virtual" subnets, you actually
need to put both NICs on literally different subnets for the network
routing to actually work. Multiple ethernet devices for LabVIEW RT
were designed with the following mantra in mind - "The FIRST ethernet
device is designed for a TCP/IP network, the SECOND and SUBSEQUENT
ethernet device is designed for OTHER protocol uses." By "OTHER
protocol uses" I mean the second NIC should be used for RT
Deterministic Ethernet (PXI, RT Desktop, et. al.), direct connections
with other targets, and 3rd party or custom ethernet protocols.
Now, realistically, we can't expect users to not use the second NIC for
TCP/IP use, nor should we. However, if you ARE going to use TCP/IP on
the second NIC, you should only use the second NIC for connecting to an
unroutable network in the eyes of the first NIC. So, for instance, the
FIRST NIC can have an IP address of 10.0.62.128, but the SECOND NIC
would need to have an IP address on 192.168.100.23 - and the
10.0.62.128 should not be able to route a TCP packet to the 192.168.x.x
network, and vice versa. In your example I noticed that both networks
used the same Gateway - unless your Gateway is configured to identify
and seperate the two networks, it's not going to end well, and you
shouldn't expect to be able to send data from one NIC to the other NIC
(at least with what you know now). To reiterate, using multiple NICs
using TCP/IP should only be done in cases where you've got (n-1)
isolated subnets, where n is the number of NICs you have using TCP/IP.
A classic example of this is a command-based measurement environment;
the RT system uses the FIRST NIC to talk to a TCP/IP network, in order
to transfer data or provide status to a network, and the second NIC is
connected to a TCP/IP network designed specifically for measurement or
control, where one node sends commands to a single or multiple nodes on
the network at once to perform tasks (like "Take a Measurement", "Stop
a motor", "Bake me a Pie", etc...). The isolated TCP/IP subnet is free
from "random" TCP/IP traffic (especially system announcement
broadcasts) and can have whatever topology/configuration it wants. The
dual networking allows the RT system to work/communicate/perform on
both networks.
I hope this helps shed some light on your situation.
Cheers!
-Danny

How to specify one ethernet port for network home directories (other for normal filesharing)?

So I'm trying to get Home Directories up and running on a 10.6.8 Xserve (waiting until I get my NFS sharepoints migrated to a Linux server [for other reasons] before moving up to 10.7 Server). But posting here since that will be happening in the next few weeks, and it might be applicable now (so I can at least get that resolved ahead of time).
I have a different DNS entry for each ethernet port: server.office.domain.com at 192.168.0.11 for the first, and homes.services.internal at 192.168.0.10 for the second. DNS lookups for both resolve correctly (as does the reverse lookup).
If I use the Server Admin to pick a sharepoint as an automount for Home Directories, everything is fine, but it picks the server.office.domain.com hostname. Picking that works just fine, but that is also the connection that feeds the filesharing. I'd prefer to split that home directory traffic out onto the second ethernet port. So I tried just duplicating the initial connection (since it can't be edited directly in Workgroup Manager) and changing the hostname to the internal one, but I get an error when attempting to log in (the client login screen gives a very helpful "Couldn't login because of an error" error message) and don't see anything in the server logs.
The client machine shows the following line:
Code:
10/20/12 5:27:42.688 PM authorizationhost: ERROR | -[HomeDirMounter mountNetworkHomeWithURL:attributes:dirPath:username:] |
PremountHomeDirectoryWithAuthentication( url=afp://homes.services.internal/Users,
homedir=/Network/Servers/homes.services.internal/Volumes/HomeDirectories/Users/ user123, name=user123 ) returned 45
(added line breaks so it didn't extend off the page)
So it looks like this is failing because the automount isn't in place, but I'm not sure how to work that out either (i.e. how do I add that making sure it uses the internal hostname?).
Any suggestions on getting this to work?
I realize one solution is just to LACP the two ports, but that is a different ball of wax (I may do that later if I get a 4 port ethernet card and performance limitations demand it).

A possible solution might be this.
On ADSLBOX and CABLEBOX configure different subnets for the LAN, e.g.
ADSLBOX: 192.168.1.0/24
CABLEBOX: 192.168.2.0/24
The MEDIABOX gets these static IPs:
ADSL-LAN: 192.168.1.2
CABLE-LAN: 192.168.2.2
On the MEDIABOX, configure the two network interfaces using two routing tables.
The ADSL-LAN routing table
ip route add 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth0 src 192.168.1.2 table 1
ip route add default via 192.168.1.1 table 1
The CABLE-LAN routing table
ip route add 192.168.2.0/24 dev eth1 src 192.168.2.2 table 2
ip route add default via 192.168.2.1 table 2
The main routing table
ip route add 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth0 src 192.168.1.2
ip route add 192.168.2.0/24 dev eth1 src 192.168.2.2
# use the CABLE-LAN gateway as default, so general internet traffic from MEDIABOX runs over CABLEBOX
ip route add default via 192.168.2.1
define the lookup rules
ip rule add from 192.168.1.2 table 1
ip rule add from 192.168.2.2 table 2
To test the setup:
ip route show
ip route show table 1
ip route show table 2
I don't know how to persist something like this in ArchLinux using netctl. Might require to write a special systemd unit for it. Above is a working example from a RedHat box at my company.
Last edited by teekay (2013-12-04 07:42:22)

Quantum Gateway G1100 router - can't get ethernet ports to work?!

I just got a Quantum Gateway G1100 router, and the improvement in wireless networking speed over my old Actiontec router is as advertised.
However, I find that I can’t get any of my wired devices to connect to the router via any of the four yellow Ethernet ports on the back of the unit. I can only connect to this thing wirelessly. Hooking up my PC to the router with an Ethernet cable gets me no connection, not even to the router itself at 192.168.1.1 (or myfiosgateway.com).
I have a PC, a printer, a network drive/media server and a Roku all wired to my router, none of them are detected. I can connect my PC and Roku wirelessly, but the network drive and printer must be wired.
The instructions act like it should be plug-and-go for the Ethernet ports, which has always been my experience with other routers over 10+ years of using Linksys, Netgear, D-Link, Actiontec, etc., units. Usually it’s the wireless network config that has hiccups. This is a first for me.
Am I missing something obvious? I’ve swapped back in my old Actiontec router just to check things out, and the wired devices all see my home network and the internet as well.
Interestingly, if I go to the “My Network” tab on the router, I see one and only one Ethernet device. I don’t know what it is, and it is labeled “Active”, but it’s sitting on 192.168.1.4, which is the static IP address I’d configured my network drive to grab, yet it is not the network drive (any attempt to connect to it just times out).

it does give me an IP address for the ethernet connection - 192.168.1.151 - that is different from the one for the wireless connection, which is 192.168.1.152. I can see both of these listed on the router's connections as well, in the My Network tab, if I Show All. But if I disable the wireless, my PC cannot ping either iteself or the router at 192.168.1.1.
In fact, I can ping 192.168.1.152 (the wireless connection) but never 192.168.1.151.
There is no IP address for my other wired devices, except that I do see 192.168.1.4 appearing, which is the static address of the network drive device. But I cannot connect to it (there is a web and media server running on the device which ordinarily pops up a config screen at 192.168.1.4).

TC ethernet port question

Hello. My apologies if this has been covered before, but I'm having difficulties connecting one of my computers via ethernet to a new 2TB TC. Yesterday I replaced my old TC by copying its configuration file and importing it while setting up the new unit. This seems to work out fine for all the wireless and wired clients except for one, my Mac Pro, which is connected to an ethernet port on the new TC. I can't seem to find a way to diagnose what's gone wrong. Network Preferences recognizes that the ethernet cable is plugged into the Mac, but it has a very different IP address than the other clients and can't connect to the network or the Internet. I suspected either a port on the new TC wasn't working right or something was wrong with the cable itself (though everything was fine before the TC replacement) but after reordering the ethernet port connections and successfully connecting my laptop to the network through the same ethernet cable my Mac Pro was on, I realized all the connections appear to be fine and the problem is likely the Mac Pro.
I eventually connected an old Airport Express to the same cable and was able to bridge the network to the Mac Pro wirelessly, but I'd love to figure this out if there's something I'm doing wrong on the Mac Pro (I'm definitely no networking expert). If it's potentially the built-in ethernet that's the problem I'd like to know that too, before my warranty runs out.
If anyone's got any ideas I'd really be grateful.
thanks,
Paul
I should add I've tried Network Diagnostics and Network Assistant to try a new location, without any luck.

Yesterday I replaced my old TC by copying its configuration file and importing it while setting up the new unit. This seems to work out fine for all the wireless and wired clients except for one, my Mac Pro, which is connected to an ethernet port on the new TC.
Check the connectivity leds come on.. both on the TC and the Mac Pro. although I am not sure if it has connectivity led.
Try forcing the network card to a specific speed.. slower being better.. to test at least. Set to 100mbit full duplex. You do this via the system preferences for that network card.
If you still have the old TC plug the Mac into it.. if it works set it to bridge and plug the new TC into the old one. What happens?
Network Preferences recognizes that the ethernet cable is plugged into the Mac, but it has a very different IP address than the other clients and can't connect to the network or the Internet. I suspected either a port on the new TC wasn't working right or something was wrong with the cable itself (though everything was fine before the TC replacement) but after reordering the ethernet port connections and successfully connecting my laptop to the network through the same ethernet cable my Mac Pro was on, I realized all the connections appear to be fine and the problem is likely the Mac Pro.
Is the address you are getting 169.254.x.x which is a self assigned address and means the ethernet card cannot connect to the TC?? Try using a manual setup as well as the manually assigned speed. If the TC is at default, assign 10.0.1.100 say to the ethernet and 255.255.255.0 with router and dns set to 10.0.1.1 and see if it works.

RV 120w ethernet port static VLAN assignment

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for