Netgear Netgear EX6200v2 Shows Connected to Internet but When Device Connects it has no Internet

[dsfcom]

When connecting to the extender from a particular device using the 2.4 or 5.0Ghz band, the device gets no internet (i.e., "No internet, secured").  I have attempted the solution given at the following URL to no avail:

https://community.netgear.com/t5/WiFi-Range-Extenders-Nighthawk/Netgear-Genei-shows-EX6200v2-as-not-...

Please see attachment containing screenshots of the extender's configuration.  Page one clearly shows that the extender is up and running; other devices connect fine.  Page two shows the wireless configuration and page three shows the IP configuration (now the IP is dynamic from the router).  Page four shows connected devices during the screenshot; WiFi device on line two is the device in question.

I have powercycled the entire network and restarted all devices but the problem persists.  The extender does show up on the list of connected devices in the router configuration.

[dsfcom]

Correction; no devices get internet even though the device indicates that it does.

[dsfcom]

Update; factory reset also did not solve the issue.

[StephenB]

Is your router also set up to use 192.168.2.x addresses?

Do you use MAC access controls in the router?  The extender translates the MAC addresses, and you do need to add in the translated addresses to the ACL.

[dsfcom]

Thank you for responding.  Yes; the router is set up to use 192.168.2.x addresses.  MAC controls are not used in the router for wireless devices connected to the extender; only Ethernet devices.  I am not sure what is meant by adding translated addresses into the ACL.  When a device is connected to the extender it is listed with its IP, MAC, and virtual MAC.  Is it the virtual MAC you are referring to?  If so, I think I understand but what about when two different devices have the same virtual MAC?

At the moment I have the extender somewhat working; however, I have two phones connected to the 5.0Ghz band and a laptop connected to the 2.4Ghz band; when the laptop is connected to the 5.0Ghz band the message "No internet, secured" is displayed and it has no Internet.

To get to this point, I have reset the router and extender to factory defaults and started over.  I would like to make use of the 5.0Ghz band for all capable devices; however, it seems my laptop can connect but does not get Internet.

[StephenB]

---

---

Is it the virtual MAC you are referring to?  If so, I think I understand but what about when two different devices have the same virtual MAC?

Yes  The virtual MAC should be both unique and persistant (it is a transformation of the device's physical MAC).

---

@dsfcom wrote:

At the moment I have the extender somewhat working; however, I have two phones connected to the 5.0Ghz band and a laptop connected to the 2.4Ghz band; when the laptop is connected to the 5.0Ghz band the message "No internet, secured" is displayed and it has no Internet.

---

It sounds like the extender is working, since the phones are getting internet access.

Have you confirmed that the laptop has gotten a 192.168.2.x IP address from the router (when connecting at 5 Ghz)?

If not, you could try opening the command prompt and entering ipconfig /renew and see if that solves it.

[dsfcom]

Thank you for helping!  I have tested the connection to the 5.0Ghz band and it does get an IP at the router; actually it's the same as when I connect to the 2.4Ghz band.  The default gateway and DHCP server in both situations under ipconfig /all is the same as well.  The only difference is that the Internet does not work for this particular device on the 5.0Ghz band.

[StephenB]

Can you ping the router from the laptop?

[dsfcom]

Thank you for helping. Today I once again power cycled the entire network by unplugging power supplies from all three components (i.e., modem, router, extender) and then plugging them back in one at a time in the same sequence; waiting for each to fully start up. I then connected my laptop to the extender's 5.0Ghz band and the status indicated 'Connected, secured' which appeared to be a good sign.

When attempting a speed test at www.speedtest.net it repeatedly failed to initialize and when it did work the speed was very slow (39ms ping; 3.35Mbps down; failed up). In fact, overall performance of the 5.0Ghz band on this device is very bad and intermittent; to include access to network attached storage. From the same position in the house on my phone I have no problems at all using the 5.0Ghz band and get good results on the speed test using the same site and server (49ms ping; 29.9Mbps down; 11.4Mbps up). To answer your question; yes, I am intermittently able to ping the router when connected to the 5.0Ghz band.

----- BEGIN 5.0Ghz PING RESULTS -----

PS C:\WINDOWS\system32> ping 192.168.2.1

Pinging 192.168.2.1 with 32 bytes of data 
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 192.168.2.1:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
PS C:\WINDOWS\system32> ping 192.168.2.1

Pinging 192.168.2.1 with 32 bytes of data 
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 192.168.2.1:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 3ms, Maximum = 4ms, Average = 3ms
PS C:\WINDOWS\system32> ping 192.168.2.1

Pinging 192.168.2.1 with 32 bytes of data 
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 192.168.2.1:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 3ms, Maximum = 5ms, Average = 4ms
PS C:\WINDOWS\system32> ping 192.168.2.1

Pinging 192.168.2.1 with 32 bytes of data 
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=1082ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 192.168.2.1:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 4ms, Maximum = 1082ms, Average = 276ms
PS C:\WINDOWS\system32>

----- END 5.0Ghz PING RESULTS -----

Attached are screen shots from router and extender perspectives when this device is connected to the 5.0Ghz band. Page 1 is from the router's perspective and page 2 is from the extender's perspective. The laptop's device name is 'VAD-DSFCOM-LT01'. During this period of troubleshooting the connection status on the 5.0Ghz band remained 'Connected, secured'.

I then connected to the extender's 2.4Ghz band. When attempting a speed test at www.speedtest.net it repeatedly succeeded and performance appeared very good (41ms ping; 50.38Mbps down; 11.50Mbps up). In fact, overall performance of the 2.4Ghz band on this device is very good; to include access to network attached storage. From the same position in the house on my phone I also have no problems using the 2.4Ghz band and get good results on the speed test using the same site and server (38ms ping; 42.9Mbps down; 11.5Mbps up). To answer the same question for the 2.4Ghz band; yes, I am consistently able to ping the router when connected to the 2.4Ghz band.

----- BEGIN 2.4Ghz PING RESULTS -----

PS C:\WINDOWS\system32> ping 192.168.2.1

Pinging 192.168.2.1 with 32 bytes of data 
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 192.168.2.1:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 3ms, Maximum = 6ms, Average = 4ms
PS C:\WINDOWS\system32> ping 192.168.2.1

Pinging 192.168.2.1 with 32 bytes of data 
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 192.168.2.1:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 4ms, Maximum = 5ms, Average = 4ms
PS C:\WINDOWS\system32> ping 192.168.2.1

Pinging 192.168.2.1 with 32 bytes of data 
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 192.168.2.1:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 3ms, Maximum = 4ms, Average = 3ms
PS C:\WINDOWS\system32> ping 192.168.2.1

Pinging 192.168.2.1 with 32 bytes of data 
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 192.168.2.1:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 3ms, Maximum = 5ms, Average = 4ms
PS C:\WINDOWS\system32>

----- END 2.4Ghz PING RESULTS -----

Also attached are screen shots from router and extender perspectives when this device is connected to the 2.4Ghz band. Page 3 is from the router's perspective and page 4 is from the extender's perspective. During this period of troubleshooting the connection status on the 2.4Ghz band remained 'Connected, secured'.

I suspect the 2.4Ghz band performs well but the 5.0Ghz band does not. Here lies my predicament; I do not understand why this is the case. While I could simply stick with the 2.4Ghz band and ignore the 5.0Ghz band I would like to be able to use the full functionality of the extender on this machine.

[schumaku]

What does hit my eyes from the screenshots is the fact that the extender does show the very same Virtual MAC address for multiple devices/real MAC. Kind of predictable things are flaky...

[StephenB]

---

@schumaku wrote:

the extender does show the very same Virtual MAC address for multiple devices/real MAC. 

---

I agree that seems wrong.  Perhaps also look at the router's attached device list, and see what mac addresses it has for these devices.

[dsfcom]

Hello and thanks again for helping!  My understanding of how the extender works is that it provides two virtual MAC addresses; in my case they are:

A6:04:60:2A:1C:8C for the 2.4Ghz band

A0:04:60:2A:1C:8D for the 5.0Ghz band

It seems that any device connected to the extender will be assigned one of these two MAC addresses and then be passed to the router with both the devices MAC and the assigned virtual MAC.  On the router side, each device connected to the extender is listed twice with the same IP but two different MACs.  Is it not supposed to work this way?

[StephenB]

The extender itself has a virtual MAC address on the router for each band, and each client device should also have it's own virtual MAC address on the router.  That's needed because the router needs a MAC address for each device in order to route the data (the IP address by itself isn't enough), and because the extender needs different client-device MAC addresses for the two hops (client->extender and extender->router). 

There is described in the kb article here (though it is pretty complicated): https://kb.netgear.com/24806/How-can-I-retrieve-the-virtual-MAC-address-from-the-Wi-Fi-Range-Extende...

[dsfcom]

Thank you StephenB.  I am not sure we are talking about the same thing; either that or I have no idea what you mean.  When I connect a device to the extender it is listed on the connected devices page with its real MAC and virtual MAC.  Multiple devices connected to the same wireless band have the same virtual MAC.  I am currently seeing five devices with the same virtual MAC on the extender end.  On the router side I see the same devices; each with its real MAC and virtual MAC as two separate entries on the device list page.  These MACs are the same as the ones on the extender end.  Should they each have a different virtual MAC?  Is there something wrong with my extender causing the five devices to all have the same virtual MAC?

[StephenB]

---

@dsfcom wrote:

Should they each have a different virtual MAC?

---

It's not an extender I own, but I think they should all have different virtual MACs.  Hopefully @DexterJB will chime in and clarify.