2 computers, 1 router

[Kim]

But unless you are running a server farm, router based firewalling isnt really a requirement. I don't use the Netgear firewall as all our home computers have firewall and AV on board.

I disagree.  Basic firewalling at the router is just good sense.  NAT provides a firewall-like functionality, as incoming connections have nowhere to go by default.  Many cheap routers don't provide anything else, so when you turn the NAT off, the network is wide open.

[Feline]

My Netgear DGN2000 is an all in one wireless ADSL modem router and seems to be extremely reliable with a nice browser based interface for changing settings. I was recomended it when I got fed up of my previous router dropping connections while I was playing MUD games leading to the linkless death of my Elf to 3 trolls on one occasion.

This router has 2 PCs, 3 laptops, a PS3, Wii, Kindle, iPhone and android phone all connected wirelessly to it

[Manotea]

But unless you are running a server farm, router based firewalling isnt really a requirement. I don't use the Netgear firewall as all our home computers have firewall and AV on board.

I disagree.  Basic firewalling at the router is just good sense.  NAT provides a firewall-like functionality, as incoming connections have nowhere to go by default.  Many cheap routers don't provide anything else, so when you turn the NAT off, the network is wide open.

You mistake me. I have NAT addressing enabled (don't all home networks?) but IMO that's an addressing mechanism, not a firewall. My point is that real firewalling is done on the laptops. The only practical solution as half the time they are out and about being connected to other strange networks.

As it happens we don't have any other networked devices in the house right now. I'm guessing a lot of folk have Media Centres and NAS networked in which case perimeter firewalling is a good idea. Actually, my TV is network capable. I'll need to address this issue come the day I plug it in.

[Kim]

You mistake me. I have NAT addressing enabled (don't all home networks?)

Mine doesn't.  And Julian and Charlotte's won't when correctly configured.

but IMO that's an addressing mechanism, not a firewall.

I agree.  It's a kludge to allow a single real-world IP address to be shared between many machines.  But blocking incoming connections is a useful side-effect.  And many consumer-grade routers provide no other firewall capability, which is fine until you turn off the NAT.

My point is that real firewalling is done on the laptops. The only practical solution as half the time they are out and about being connected to other strange networks.

Yeah, that makes sense for laptops.

Actually, a software firewall's probably a good idea for anything running Windows, as malware making outbound connections is as much if not more of a risk than worms and the like.

As it happens we don't have any other networked devices in the house right now.

Ah.  I'm coming from the perspective of a heterogeneous network of server and desktop machines, embedded and mobile devices.  Obviously those that connect to J Random Wireless networks are reasonably locked down, but a firewall is needed to prevent - for example - anyone on the internet from printing to the Laserjet.

[Simonb]

Note for the helpful but unfamiliar with AAISP: an AAISP supplied router is highly likely not configured to use NAT and RFC1918 addresses.  They do real routing wherever possible.

Not sure this is the case for their home packages -- pretty certain they are configured for NAT/ RFC1918 as they don't forward public subnets to all their customers by default. Otherwise Joe X would have a pretty hard time getting anything done (and they do market to him to an extent).

Their various offerings are excellent and I've been using/recommending them to businesses for donkeys.

Think the OP needs to:
1. Check with support whether the ADSL router is doing NAT/DHCP (call 033 33 400 999)
2. If not, get them to set it up (they'll know the customers WAN address and login as they're all static at A&A)
3. Disable DHCP on the Linksys, and put it on 192.168.1.0/24
4. Look into getting some address space from A&A (they provide public subnets for free*) if they want to do away with NAT altogether (not sure how this will work when OP is roaming on others' networks with smartphone, laptop, etc -- I use a mix of NAT'ed/ properly routed subnets behind m0n0wall/FireBrick or similar)

* Presumably because they want to get businesses away from NATing/ <spits>port forwarding</spits> and they understand that IPv6 will do away with all this nonsense anyway (ie, charging for IP address space)  -- still, I've no doubt BT et al will continue to charge arms and legs even for IPv6 space.

[andygates]

Okay, so the setup is nonstandard and I'm sure there's a good reason for that.  Call the support guys.  This will absolutely not be the first time they've heard this!

[Charlotte]

Well, I managed to fix it at about half midnight last night.  It seems stable enough with both computers and my phone all using the wireless now that I've got DCHP properly disabled on the Linksys box so that it's the AAISP router who's handing out the local addresses.  But it's only been trial and error that's got us to this and I hate that.

I'm going to give AAISP a ring tomorrow afternoon when I'm at home during the day and see what they say.  I suspect, "buy a better router" will be about a hundred times easier than grobbling about with the settings on both existing boxes.  Not to mention reclaiming wall-wart space.

In the meantime, thanks for all your very useful suggestions.  I'm just frustrated that this sort of issue can flummox even a moderately tech-savvy consumer like myself.  I'm not stupid, I'm not unaware of how these things work - but I still end up shouting at them and wondering if I'd not do better dancing widdershins round my ADSL socket...

[inc]

From the AA site if you had ordered the ZyXEL P-660HN-T1A Router  (£50)  instead of the crap single port router they supply (£28)  your problems would not exist. They seem expensive for what they provide.

[Simonb]

From the AA site if you had ordered the ZyXEL P-660HN-T1A Router  (£50)  instead of the crap single port router they supply (£28)  your problems would not exist. They seem expensive for what they provide.

The single port router is fine for small-scale usage (you can always add a hub/ wireless router to divvy things up).

They are expensive. But their support is unmatched (talking to people who understand the problem -- fancy that!). As is the flexibility of their offerings -- their 'packages' are purely nominal as they will do pretty much anything you want.

[Biggsy]

Wouldn't a £15 multi-port Belkin router off eBay do the job?

[inc]

The single port router is fine for small-scale usage (you can always add a hub/ wireless router to divvy things up).

A single port router is almost useless for most domestic situations, yes you can add a hub or wireless router but why need to, most homes use more than one device to connect to the net.  If AA are so wonderful why do they supply such an unsuitable router as part of their standard package. I don't download movies or music just normal internet use about 8 GB a month with AA that would be £44.60 !! with Idnet I pay £18 and Idnet are rated around the same for service and speed  by users on the Broadband forums,  AA charge   a hefty premium on a bog standard ADSL service they are good but not that good.

[ian]

I had a fantastically sweaty time setting up my parents' wireless 'nets the other week. Again the single port modem set-up (bog standard Thomson cable modem). The eventual solution was to move the wireless router was at least metre away from the tv (evidently a plasma TV emits a brain- and wif-scrambling wail of EM radiation) and ensure the modem was switched off before I plugged the router into it. Credit to Virgin, their web instructions did say to do this, but I'm a man and I don't read instructions.

The A&A setup sounds painfully unnecessary unless you have special needs. I am sure they have wonderful service, but in a decade I've needed customer service from my ISP once. It was admittedly a crap experience.

Basic modem/router and NAT suits most people fine. Plug in and go - I have one wired Mac, three wireless Macs, my work PC, my wife's work PC, Wii, Blackberry, Kindle, iPod touch, iPad etc. all effortlessly linked to my bog standard Belkin N router. It just works.

[Simonb]

The A&A setup sounds painfully unnecessary unless you have special needs.

I agree. Home connections are not really their speciality.

[Simonb]

I don't download movies or music just normal internet use about 8 GB a month with AA that would be £44.60 !!

Is that office-hours usage? I pay about £23/month and get through way more than that, plus a public subnet routed on my line, great service and support and a co.uk domain name thrown in. Unbeatable in my view.

[Maverick]

I just started with AA and found the setup to be pretty trivial. I didn't buy one of their routers but used an existing single port modem/router, 8 port switch and a wireless access point. They provided a block of real addresses some of which are assigned staticlly and some via DHCP. Took about an hour to sort out.
As for cost for £23 a month I have effectively got limitless download as long as I don't hammer it Mon - Fri 9-5. Only problem I've had has been with domain transfer and that was my fault as an authorisation email landed in a junk mail folder and got deleted without being read. AA have been brilliant in helping to sort that out.

[andygates]

Well, I managed to fix it at about half midnight last night.  It seems stable enough with both computers and my phone all using the wireless now that I've got DCHP properly disabled on the Linksys box so that it's the AAISP router who's handing out the local addresses. 

That sounds sane.  I'd leave it.  Ain't broke, and all that. 

[iakobski]

Well, I managed to fix it at about half midnight last night.  It seems stable enough with both computers and my phone all using the wireless now that I've got DCHP properly disabled on the Linksys box so that it's the AAISP router who's handing out the local addresses. 

That sounds sane.  I'd leave it.  Ain't broke, and all that. 

Agreed. I've not read the whole thread, so someone may already have suggested: log on to the AAISP router web page, find the DHCP settings and limit it to a range like 100-200. Otherwise, one day it will hand out the same ip address as the linksys and stuff will suddenly stop working for no apparent reason.

[Simonb]

Well, I managed to fix it at about half midnight last night.  It seems stable enough with both computers and my phone all using the wireless now that I've got DCHP properly disabled on the Linksys box so that it's the AAISP router who's handing out the local addresses. 

That sounds sane.  I'd leave it.  Ain't broke, and all that. 

Agreed. I've not read the whole thread, so someone may already have suggested: log on to the AAISP router web page, find the DHCP settings and limit it to a range like 100-200. Otherwise, one day it will hand out the same ip address as the linksys and stuff will suddenly stop working for no apparent reason.

^^ this.

A&A will have printed the username/password/IP address on a card attached to the underside of the ADSL router.

[Charlotte]

Sounds like good advice.  So right now I have the AAISP router on http://198.162.1.1/ (with DCHP enabled) and the Linksys set to http://198.162.1.2/.

Then I constrain the AAISP router to doling out addresses via DCHP between http://198.162.1.100/  and http://198.162.1.199/  or something?

[tom_e]

Agreed. I've not read the whole thread, so someone may already have suggested: log on to the AAISP router web page, find the DHCP settings and limit it to a range like 100-200. Otherwise, one day it will hand out the same ip address as the linksys and stuff will suddenly stop working for no apparent reason.

Why not just let the linksys use its DHCP client? No need to throw the client out with the server.

[iakobski]

Agreed. I've not read the whole thread, so someone may already have suggested: log on to the AAISP router web page, find the DHCP settings and limit it to a range like 100-200. Otherwise, one day it will hand out the same ip address as the linksys and stuff will suddenly stop working for no apparent reason.

Why not just let the linksys use its DHCP client? No need to throw the client out with the server.

Because you might need to log on to the linksys and knowing it's ip address is easier than trying to find it out.

[iakobski]

Sounds like good advice.  So right now I have the AAISP router on http://198.162.1.1/ (with DHCP enabled) and the Linksys set to http://198.162.1.2/.

Then I constrain the AAISP router to doling out addresses via DHCP between 198.162.1.100  and 198.162.1.199  or something?

Yes.

By default the DHCP on the AAISP will hand out anything from 198.162.1.2 to 198.162.1.254

[tom_e]

Why not just let the linksys use its DHCP client? No need to throw the client out with the server.

Because you might need to log on to the linksys and knowing it's ip address is easier than trying to find it out.

Fair point, that would be useful.

@Charlotte: Yes, that's right.