Connecting 2 Vodafone routers but no internet connection on second router

[sakijura]

Hi all! 😊

I have 2 identical Vodafone Hubs. I would like to extend a wired connection from the 1st router to the 2nd router by connecting the secondary router to the primary one. Exploring this forum and after some googling, I have taken the following actions.

Router 1 is connected to the ONT Fibre box onto the WAN port. The internet is working fine on this one.

Gateway Network: 192.168.1.1 (standard)

DHCP Server Activated with range: 192.168.1.10 to 192.168.1.199

Router 2 is connected to Router 1 through an ethernet cable from LAN to LAN port. The internet button is flashing red, however Wi-Fi LED is stable white.

Gateway Network: 192.168.1.2 (changed to give it a unique IP address)

DHCP Server De-activated.

(Yes I am certain they are not mixed as I made sure to turn off the other one and only leave one connected while changing the settings. I am also able to enter the router settings on for both routers simultaneously as they are connected to each other through a cable, I'm just not getting an active internet connection.

The Wi-Fi settings are sorted with the correct channels so that isn't the problem. The problem is within the wired connection.

When I connect a LAN cable from my PC to Router 1, the internet is working fine. ✅
When I connect a LAN cable from my PC to Router 2, the cable is detected and it shows a broadband symbol, but no active internet connection. ❌

None of the cables are defect as I have tested them using other devices as well.

Does anyone know what could possibly be wrong or why I'm not getting an active internet connection on the 2nd router? Any help would be appreciated! 🔧

[CrimsonLiar]

Because the gateway is the address internet data is routed to!  When your data arrives at the gateway device it is then routed either over the WAN or DSL connection and not through the network to the other router!  To have any chance you would need to change the gateway address on the embedded network to be that of the primary router.  There is also much more difference between a router and switch than just turning off the DHCP.

While I wish you good luck, I doubt you are going to get this set up to be trouble free!

[network123]

Hang on... Why have you given DCHP ranges between .10 and .199? Revert back to .2 and .199, and try again.

[CrimsonLiar]

Not a good idea, it would enable the primary DHCP router to potentially assign .2 to a different device!

*Ranges here for the LAN are 192.168.127.16 to 192.168.127.239 with infrastructure/servers in lower region and fixed address IOT in the upper range.  All devices in those ranges with Manual IPs so should I need to reset the router, I only have to exclude the ranges and not set up Static IPs on the router!  *My IOT devices that don't need manually set local addresses don't have them!

The second router is still acting as a router and not a switch so having the gateway address of the second router set to 192.168.1.2 even if this is not being broadcast to clients is still a problem.  Intenet data will still be routed via the WAN or DSL ports, hence double NAT may be preferable if you can live with it!

[Jayach]

---

@CrimsonLiar wrote:

Not a good idea, it would enable the primary DHCP router to potentially assign .2 to a different device!

---

---

@sakijura wrote:

Router 1 is connected to the ONT Fibre box onto the WAN port. The internet is working fine on this one.

Gateway Network: 192.168.1.1 (standard)

DHCP Server Activated with range: 192.168.1.10 to 192.168.1.199

---

Why would it potentially assign .2 to another device if it's outside it's scope?

[Jayach]

Although it would probably be better to put the 2nd router on a different address completely, say 192.168.2.1.

[CrimsonLiar]

Regards the 192.168.1.2 comment, I was referring to the post from @network123 , where changing the DHCP reservation range back to 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.199 would have put the secondary router (192.168.1.2) back into the scope of the primary routers' DCHP allocation.  Most of the time it'll work, but it's certainly not good practice to place manually IP allocated devices into the DHCP assignment range - statically assigned devices it's debatable.

Changing the subnet on the secondary router could help if the setup were double NAT, but it still doesn't get around the problem of how the secondary router is routing internet traffic.  

*I'll freely admit I dislike double NAT, it's never worked properly for me, and I would seek to prevent it wherever possible - even though it does appear to work flawlessly for some people!

**Obviously this setup is pretty easy to replicate without disturbing the main network, so if I have the time I may have a go later this afternoon!  It'll provide some relief from trying to set up the router to work as a Mosquitto (MQTT) server!

[Jayach]

@CrimsonLiar

Sorry, I hadn't realised you were specifically referring to @network123's post.

I've never had a problem with double NAT, but still avoid it, just in case.

[Jayach]

---

@CrimsonLiar wrote:

Changing the subnet on the secondary router could help if the setup were double NAT, but it still doesn't get around the problem of how the secondary router is routing internet traffic.  

I'm not sure I understand the problem. The devices will all be getting their internet settings from the first router and as all the data will be going via the switch in the second router the routing functions shouldn't enter into it. (Apologies If I'm exposing my lack of complete knowledge on the subject)

[network123]

---

@CrimsonLiar wrote:

Regards the 192.168.1.2 comment, I was referring to the post from @network123 , where changing the DHCP reservation range back to 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.199 would have put the secondary router (192.168.1.2) back into the scope of the primary routers' DCHP allocation.  Most of the time it'll work, but it's certainly not good practice to place manually IP allocated devices into the DHCP assignment range - statically assigned devices it's debatable.

Changing the subnet on the secondary router could help if the setup were double NAT, but it still doesn't get around the problem of how the secondary router is routing internet traffic.  

*I'll freely admit I dislike double NAT, it's never worked properly for me, and I would seek to prevent it wherever possible - even though it does appear to work flawlessly for some people!

**Obviously this setup is pretty easy to replicate without disturbing the main network, so if I have the time I may have a go later this afternoon!  It'll provide some relief from trying to set up the router to work as a Mosquitto (MQTT) server!

---

My other alternative would've been perhaps don't use two VF routers... Double the trouble.

Just get a dedicated WAP or switch (whichever OP is trying to achieve here).