NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Solved
Nighthawk R8000 DHCP on WAN port not working
I replaced Netgear WNR3500L with Netgear R8000. I had WNR3500L's WAN port connected to TP-LINK TD-W8960N DSL modem (setup in router mode) and obtaining IP address and DNS servers from it using DHCP. ...
> [...] I have "Internet IP Address" set to "Get Dynamically from ISP"
> in "Internet Setup". [...]What about all the other Internet Setup settings? Did you try
letting the set-up wizard do what it does?> [...] Why?
Who knows? With my weak psychic powers, I can't see any of the LED
indicators on any of your devices, or any of the R8000 Internet Setup
settings (save one), or the configuration of your old WNR3500L. Could
be a bad Ethernet cable, for all I know.If you connect a computer to the TD-W8960N, does _it_ get good IP
parameters? (Namely?)> [...] TD-W8960N DSL modem (setup in router mode) [...] "I connected
> R8000 the same way [...]
Why, exactly, are you arranging a cascade of routers, instead of
using one router (modem and router, or modem+router and wireless access
point)? Cascading multiple routers can cause multiple problems (double
NAT, for example), even when you get such an arrangement to work.
antinode wrote:
> The only reason for this setup is that I did not like not being able
> to reach modem (web UI) from LAN when I had modem bridged with the
> rourter.
I'm now at least as confused as I was before.
I thought that once modem is switched to bridge mode it becomes impossible to access its web UI which I later found out (at https://superuser.com/a/993785/664) to not be the case. That's why now I'm trying to configure R8000 so that I could access modem's web UI through it. This is the subject of my new question at https://community.netgear.com/t5/Nighthawk-WiFi-Routers/How-to-access-modem-from-router-when-modem-is-in-the-bridge-mode/m-p/2074383/
A static address is static, not leased. A dynamic address is leased.
A "static lease" is not a thing.
Yes, indeed.
Among the things which I don't know about a TD-W8960N is whether you
can talk to its management web site when it's in a modem-only mode.
Yes, I can. I explained this in my new question cited above. Let's continue there, shall we?
It depends on the modem. But, generally, once a modem has been
configured, there's little reason to deal with it.
Generally yes. Then one day something is not working and you want to take a quick :) look what's the status of DSL line.
> [...] I thought that once modem is switched to bridge mode it becomes
> impossible to access its web UI which I later found out (at
> https://superuser.com/a/993785/664) to not be the case. [...]
Where, exactly, in that discussion is the TD-W8960N mentioned? My
web-browser search did not find it. Most of that discussion seems to
me to be confused/confusing.
> It depends on the modem. [...]
Which part of "It depends on the modem" was unclear?
> Generally yes. [...]
I get the idea, and I'd want to do it, too. But it's not a natural
feature for a simple modem these days. Twenty years ago, I was using a
Cisco 678 as a DSL modem (actually a modem+router), but it had a serial
port and a command-line interface, so I didn't need an IP network
connection to manage the thing.
> If you want the TD-W8960N to be a modem only, with the R8000 as a
> full-function router, then you need more information on the TD-W8960N,
> and a Netgear forum might not be the best place to get it.
All still true.
If the TD-W8960N-as-modem is actually accessible at some IP address
from its LAN side, then I'd expect it to be reachable through the R8000
without doing anything to the R8000. From any system which is on the
LAN of the R8000, if you try to reach any IP address which is _not_ on
its own LAN, then I'd expect the R8000 to pass that message out through
its WAN/Internet port, where it will reach the TD-W8960N-as-modem. You
don't need any special routing to make that happen.
And if the TD-W8960N-as-modem has its own LAN subnet (because it's
really still a router), then _it_ might need some special routing to get
a message back to the R8000, but the R8000 would still need no changes,
because it would still want to send any foreign-looking traffic out
through its WAN/Internet port (to the TD-W8960N).
One possibly interesting example would be the Netgear DM200. It's
advertised as a "DSL Modem", but it's actually a DSL modem with a lame
router. The DM200 has a special address where it responds when in
modem-only mode, "192.168.5.1". (Like "192.168.100.1" for a DOCSIS
cable-TV modem.) But, so far as I know, none of the Netgear Dxxxx
modem+router models has such a feature. And, as I said, I don't know
what the TD-W8960N can do in such a mode.
> [...] This is the subject of my new question [...]
Which is more distracting than helpful?
> Where, exactly, in that discussion is the TD-W8960N mentioned? My
> web-browser search did not find it. Most of that discussion seems to
> me to be confused/confusing.Nowhere. I believed that bridged modem can't be accessed due to the nature of the bridge itself regardless of the modem's capabilities and that answer showed I was wrong. That the modem has to support this is true and I checked my modem does support this by successfully accessing its web UI from computer directly connected to one of its LAN ports (while R8000 being simultaneously connected to another LAN port and modem being in bridge mode).
> Which is more distracting than helpful?
I have no idea what you mean by this.
> I have no idea what you mean by this.
You're running two separate discussions for one problem. One
discussion per problem would be less confusing and more efficient.> You're running two separate discussions for one problem. One discussion per problem would be less confusing and more efficient.
The original problem was R8000 not obtaining IP address which was solved by widening IP range in configuration of DHCP server in modem which R8000 is connected to.
Once this was solved the next problem arose which was how to connect to modem through R8000. That's why I created new thread and suggested moving discussion there:
> I explained this in my new question cited above. Let's continue there, shall we?
However, as you keep posting here I keep answering :)