NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Solved
Can't get extra networks to route through to the Internet
Hi, Not sure what I'm missing here, however, I can't get two networks to route through this router to the Internet. The existing LAN network already on the router works. Originally 192.168.0....
I'm going to assume that everyone has read my reply and run for the hills.
I'm also going to assume that the Netgear Nighthawk that I have will only NAT the network specified in the LAN settings. Therefore not a full router but a cut down version of a routing function. Understandably ideal for home use. Not what I need.
This appears to be the logical conclusion based on the results earlier.
If I'm wrong please let me know. Otherwise this may help someone in the future.
In the meantime I'm going to set up NAT on the router south of the Netgear Nighthawk. Messy - not ideal - but I need to get a move on with what I'm doing.
I think that you should be contemplating Commercial Grade equipment.
Good Luck to you and your qwest.....
> Device -->Netgear D7000v or Broadband Router (BB for short maybe?)
"maybe?"? Don't you know what you meant? What is a "D7000v"?
D7000[v1]? D7000v2?> This is to the Netgear D7000v2
At last, an actual model number. Whew.
> Additional Static Routes added to Netgear D7000v [...]
Swell. What are those routes?
> static route 192.168.10.0/25 Next hop 192.168.0.250
> static route 192.168.20.0/29 Next hop 192.168.0.250What's at "192.168.0.250"? It deals with multiple subnets?
> The Netgear D7000v or Broadband Router is not translating the new
> networks.
I don't know what that means. "translating"?After that, you lost me completely. I've used static routes for
different subnets on my D7000[v1] with no particular trouble, but when I
did it I knew all the relevant IP addresses, and the actual route
specifications.> The level of detail you demanded (?!?!) bears absolutely no relevance
> to the question.If you believe that "I've added the relevant static routes" is an
adequate description of anything, then we might never agree on what's an
adequate description.> I'm going to assume that everyone has read my reply and run for the
> hills.
You can, of course, assume anything you wish. I tried to read it,
but I got lost in a blizzard of useless detail, and couldn't find the
information which I requested. One simple point: Rather than try to add
multiple subnets and routers at one time, I'd try to add one, and get
that to work (or not).> [...] I need to get a move on with what I'm doing.
Whatever that might be. I've lost interest in trying to help anyone
who clearly knows so much more than I about this stuff.