N66U With Shibby 104 Build - WAN Speed GUI Limitation

Discussion in 'Tomato Firmware' started by jprez1980, Jan 21, 2013.

  1. jprez1980

    jprez1980 Serious Server Member


    Running 2 N66U's, both with the 104 build of Shibby's Tomato USB. I have one N66U upstairs (Router 1) connected behind the 2Wire RG (in the 2Wire's DMZ mode) and for all intents and purposes it is my router supplying internet wirelessly and wired.

    The other N66U is downstairs (router 2) suppling both wired and wireless connectivity there. Router 2 is connected to Router 1 via a Cat 6 - from the WAN port of Router 2 to a LAN port on Router 1. Inside the GUI of router 2 I have WAN disabled and bridged to BR0, DHCP disabled and the router is set to "Router" mode with a local LAN IP specified.

    The only issue or oddity that I see is that under Advanced -> Miscellaneous -> WAN Port Speed doesn't have a 1000 selection. There is an "auto" selection but given that 1000 isn't in the list it makes me wonder if it can't sense or support that speed.

    The N66U has both gigabit LAN and WAN ports - is there some limitation in TomatoUSB? The default ASUS firmware supports WAN gigabit and in my application it's needed so that the downstairs wired LAN traffic travels the same speed on it's wired connections to all the gigabit devices upstairs.

  2. radionerd

    radionerd Networkin' Nut Member

    Set speed to Auto, it will automatically do gigabit speed between the routers.
  3. Monk E. Boy

    Monk E. Boy Network Guru Member

    When the gigabit specification was originally established, "Auto" was the only official way to establish a gigabit connection.

    Lately I have seen some NICs that allow you to specify a 1Gb connection, however when testing them with somewhat older 1Gb switches the connection never actually gets established at any speed. I assumed that if the switch also hard-coded a 1Gb connection that they would work, but I wouldn't want to rely on that assumption without testing.

    IOW, just leave it at Auto and it'll negotiate 1Gb all by itself. Personally I'd rather tie your LAN ports together, but I'm running Toastman where the firmware defaults to a disabled DHCP server.
  4. jprez1980

    jprez1980 Serious Server Member

    Thanks everyone!

    Monk E Boy:

    What did you mean by tying all the LAN ports together? If there is a better way to configure what I described above I'm all ears (or eyes)

  5. Monk E. Boy

    Monk E. Boy Network Guru Member

    With Toastman if the router's configuration gets blown away, the DHCP server doesn't get enabled. As a result if you tie a LAN port on your secondary router to a LAN port on another router, if the worst happens and the secondary router's configuration gets blown away, you won't have two DHCP servers on the same network. Any ethernet-connected devices on the secondary router will work seamlessly same as before, even though the router's now on a different subnet (assuming you wisely moved off the default 192.168.1.x subnet), because they can still talk LAN-to-LAN without going through the secondary router.

    If you tie WAN-to-LAN then any connected systems then need to be set on DHCP, renew their DHCP lease for the different subnet, and then - hopefully - punch through the secondary router's firewall to talk to devices on the first router. I say hopefully because it's undergoing a NAT transform and be subject to the default firewall rules. In addition if you don't change the subnet range, then the subnet in front of the secondary router will be the same as the subnet behind the secondary router, which means... no traffic will flow.
  6. Monk E. Boy

    Monk E. Boy Network Guru Member

    Er, just in case anyone else gets confused by the disconnect... because I wrote that and reading it just now it confused me.

    In the first paragraph I'm talking about why LAN-to-LAN with Toastman's firmware is a great idea, and inferring that it wouldn't be a good idea with Shibby or another build that defaults to DHCP server being enabled. You can do it, but it's fraught with problems (since two DHCP servers on the same LAN/WLAN would respond to every DHCP request). So yes, you should tie WAN to LAN with them.

    In the second paragraph I'm pointing out that if you use one of those other builds and tie WAN to LAN together as a failsafe mode for firmware corruption, you need to be sure to not keep the default (192.168.1.x) subnet since - if the secondary router gets wiped - you can't expect it to route packets from 192.168.1.x on LAN/WLAN to 192.168.1.x on WAN. And that your secondary router, the one connected via WAN, needs to have all devices using DHCP so they can flip over to the 192.168.1.x subnet in the event of failure.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice