NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.

Forum Discussion

mloschiavo6's avatar
mloschiavo6
Aspirant
Jan 30, 2021

R6300 through a GS108p netgear switch

Is there a known issue when connecting a R6300 rounter through a netgear GS108P switch?   I have a switch setup in the basement which has cables running to my kids computers without any issue.  I wa...
mloschiavo6's avatar
mloschiavo6
Aspirant
Jan 31, 2021

Unintentionally posted the picture without the description.  

The top pic shows the current non-working setup.  

The lower pic shows how it was setup and working normally. 

My goal was to increase connectivity to the far end of the house rather than have two broadcasting wifi units in one room which was now overkill since Comcast actually has a good cable modem.  We had the XB3 before (or sb... forget the code...)  

The main idea was that when running out of the cable modem directly into the netgear router, it was working fine.  

So:

Cable modem -> netgear router = working router

Cable -> switch -> netgear router = non-working router

I'm hoping this can be fixed.

Thanks,

Mike

  • schumaku's avatar
    schumaku
    Guru
    Jan 31, 2021

    Mike,

     

    > Cable modem -> switch -> netgear router = non-working router

     

    This is not possible - and not a Netgear limitation. Your ISP does allow only one public IP address intended for one computer or one NAT router.

     

    Cable Modem <-> Router WAN/internet port .... Router LAN port <-> Switch <-> internal systems.

     

    The switch must be connected to a router LAN port. A dedicated connection between the cable modem and the router WAN/Internet port is required for your plan.

     

    Regards,

    -Kurt

  • antinode's avatar
    antinode
    Guru
    Jan 31, 2021

    > I'm hoping this can be fixed.

     

          "Doctor, it hurts when I do this."

     

          "Don't do that."

     

       The only things which need fixing here are your expectations.  Which
    part of "don't do that" was unclear to you?

    • mloschiavo6's avatar
      mloschiavo6
      Aspirant
      Jan 31, 2021

      The part that was unclear was that logically there's no reason it shouldn't work.  What it comes down to, based on the reply I recieved was that the cable company is allowed to control more than they should be allowed to control.  

      See, again, I'm basing it on logic here: the signal is going from A to B to C which is a simple data flow.  So that was why it was unclear.  It reminds me of how much control we give over to the monopoly.  

      Anyway...

      I have already ordered a ethernet cable to run below the floor and back up to where I want this going from A to B only and remove the C (Netgear router) from the equation so I need no more assistance nor, based on Antinode's reply, further sarcasm either.  

      Thanks for your help and advice Kurt.  

      Mike

      • antinode's avatar
        antinode
        Guru
        Feb 01, 2021

        > The part that was unclear was that logically there's no reason it
        > shouldn't work. [...]

         

           Of course there's a reason.  If you understood the logic involved,
        then you might realize that.  If you want to know why, then ask why.

         

           If these gizmos were strings of Christmas-tree lights, _then_ there
        might be no logical reason not to connect any piece to any other piece.
        However, they're not, and they don't all do the same jobs, so you can't
        just switch them around to make your wiring more convenient.

         

        > [...] the cable company is allowed to control more than they should be
        > allowed to control.

         

           They give you what you pay for.  For typical residential service,
        that is _one_ external/public IP address.  This implies that you can
        connect one device directly to the modem.  That one device could be a
        computer or a NAT router.  (An Ethernet switch would let you connect
        multiple devices directly to the modem, but at most one of them would
        get the one IP address from your ISP, leaving any other devices which
        are connected to that switch incommunicado.


           If that one device is a NAT router, then you can connect multiple
        devices to the LAN side of that NAT router, and its NAT functionality
        would let those devices effectively share the use of your one
        external/public IP address.  Your modem can't do that.

         

           None of this has anything to do with monopolistic cable ISPs, or
        QAnon, or any other evil conspiracy.  I'd bet that, for enough money,
        you could get from your ISP the use of a larger block of external/public
        IP addresses, which would let you connect multiple devices directly to
        your modem.  But that would expose your various devices directly to the
        Internet, and this might easily cause more trouble than you might
        expect.

         

           In the mean time, it would make more sense to connect your gizmos
        according to their actual functionality, not according to your own
        (idiosyncratic) "logic".