PsyWulf
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2006
- Messages
- 20,358
- Reaction score
- 16,003
Let me elaborate before another network genius crops up and makes a joke of himself
We have the greater internet 0.0.0.0 route<> Router1 WAN -> Router1 LAN 192.168.1.x
Now if we add router2 as suggested: 0.0.0.0 route <> Router1 WAN -> Router1 LAN 192.168.1.x <-> Router2 WAN (192.168.1.x) <-> Router2 LAN (10.0.0.x)
So let's run through some examples here
Device in LAN1 tries to access internet -> Router1 LAN (10.0.0.x) -> Router1 WAN -> 0.0.0.0 -> Destination
Device in LAN2 tries to access 10.0.0.92(LAN2) -> Router2 LAN (10.0.0.x) -> Destination (10.0.0.92)
Device in LAN2 tries to access 192.168.1.35(LAN1) -> Router2 LAN (10.0.0.x)-> Router2 WAN (192.168.1.x) -> Router1 LAN (192.168.1.x) -> Destination (192.168.1.35)
Device in LAN2 tries to access internet -> Router2 LAN -> Router2 WAN -> Router1 LAN -> Router1 WAN -> 0.0.0.0 -> Destination
So what's happening here?
Surprisingly,when the Routers can't route traffic for the destination IP over its LAN interface (It's outside my range/subnet?) the basic rule of thumb is Forward to WAN
Since WAN2 sits in LAN1 it'll happily accept and forward traffic between those networks,and it's a stateful connection,Router1 will see the request is within it's subnet/range and not pass it to the default internet route and pass it over LAN1
What does this mean for me as an IP layman?
If I were to target an IP on 192.168.1.x range from LAN2,all I need to do is request it by IP and the traffic will be passed normally
Now does this mean the proposed idea won't work? It'll work,but it won't isolate the traffic the way the OP requested (UNLESS you can enable port/guest isolation for the port used from WAN2 -> LAN1 which I don't see being mentioned)
There are other technical solutions but for intents and purposes those are also not options as they fall outside the scope of this farcical suggestion
We have the greater internet 0.0.0.0 route<> Router1 WAN -> Router1 LAN 192.168.1.x
Now if we add router2 as suggested: 0.0.0.0 route <> Router1 WAN -> Router1 LAN 192.168.1.x <-> Router2 WAN (192.168.1.x) <-> Router2 LAN (10.0.0.x)
So let's run through some examples here
Device in LAN1 tries to access internet -> Router1 LAN (10.0.0.x) -> Router1 WAN -> 0.0.0.0 -> Destination
Device in LAN2 tries to access 10.0.0.92(LAN2) -> Router2 LAN (10.0.0.x) -> Destination (10.0.0.92)
Device in LAN2 tries to access 192.168.1.35(LAN1) -> Router2 LAN (10.0.0.x)-> Router2 WAN (192.168.1.x) -> Router1 LAN (192.168.1.x) -> Destination (192.168.1.35)
Device in LAN2 tries to access internet -> Router2 LAN -> Router2 WAN -> Router1 LAN -> Router1 WAN -> 0.0.0.0 -> Destination
So what's happening here?
Surprisingly,when the Routers can't route traffic for the destination IP over its LAN interface (It's outside my range/subnet?) the basic rule of thumb is Forward to WAN
Since WAN2 sits in LAN1 it'll happily accept and forward traffic between those networks,and it's a stateful connection,Router1 will see the request is within it's subnet/range and not pass it to the default internet route and pass it over LAN1
What does this mean for me as an IP layman?
If I were to target an IP on 192.168.1.x range from LAN2,all I need to do is request it by IP and the traffic will be passed normally
Now does this mean the proposed idea won't work? It'll work,but it won't isolate the traffic the way the OP requested (UNLESS you can enable port/guest isolation for the port used from WAN2 -> LAN1 which I don't see being mentioned)
There are other technical solutions but for intents and purposes those are also not options as they fall outside the scope of this farcical suggestion