Can of Worms - TG582 in bridge mode and an Archer C9 doing the routing

[#1]

I have just set up my TG582n in bridge mode and plugged my Archer C9 router into it. Archer C9 WAN port to TG582n Ethernet port. It works - mostly.

I can access the internet through the router - which seems the first major achievement.

I do have a few questions/problems.

I would like to access the TG582n Web interface from inside my LAN. I can do it by plugging my laptop into the TG582n ports fine but that means I have to get up out of my chair:) I want to do it over the LAN.

My LAN is on the 192.168.1.XXX network and I have set the TG582n to be 192.168.0.254. I understand that means that the Archer considers the TG582 to be on the WAN and sends packets to it just as if it was an external address - which in a sense it is. But when I try to browse, or ping the 192.168.0.254 address, I get nothing back.

I have tried all of the access control, static routing things I can think of but none work - and actually none make sense - they should not be necessary. Any suggestions on what I might have missed???? Might the TG582 consider this remote management?

Second question - I bridged the TG582 using instructions found on here, mostly from MisterW but with modifications from others. Thank you all - they worked a treat. A few stray ends though. The TG582 kept asking for SNTP information from a meaningless address - so I disabled SNTP on the TG582.  However, I am less sure about the NAT setting. At the moment it is set to "Transparent". Alternatives are "Routed" and "Disabled". I tried "Disabled" but then chickened out as I do not want the world having access to the TG582n's web interfacse. The world can access the Archer as that should take care of itself but  I struggle to understand whether the TG582n's web interface would be accessible to the world if I selected "Disabled" which I think would be simpler if sensible. What does "Transparent" actually mean in NAT terms and how is it different to "Disabled" - in words of one syllable please. Any advice or comments?

Any other advice or comments on anything to do with this?

[#2]

---

@EnglishMohican wrote:

My LAN is on the 192.168.1.XXX network and I have set the TG582n to be 192.168.0.254.

Because?  Why not make the TG582n 192.168.1.254?  

[#3]

Because the router will only look for any 192.168.1.XXX address on its LAN side or so I read. By giving the modem a 192.168.0.254 address, the router would decide it was not on its LAN, so must be on the WAN - and send it there. Which would be correct.

Static routes do not seem to permit that, as they want a gateway address and clearly, I cannot use the same gateway or we just go round in circles.

[#4]

I'm not sure if the TG582 will respond to LAN traffic on the same port that's being used for the 'bridge' but even if it does you will need some form of WAN IP Alias setting on the C9.

Let me explain. On the C9, any WAN traffic i.e not 192.168.1.x will get routed down the PPPoE connection , straight to the PN gateway, which on receipt of any private IP addresses ( 192.168.x.x ) will not be able to route them.

To do what you want to do, you need to put a WAN IP Alias, in the same subnet as the TG582, on the C9 WAN port. This makes the C9 aware of that subnet and to route the traffic directly down the physical port rather than down the PPPoE connection.

There's a good description here http://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php?topic=18832.0 but that's for a Draytek router and I don't know if the C9 has a similar facility ( and then whether the TG582n will respond anyway ).

Another option (not really nice ) would be to run a 2nd cable between a LAN port on the C9 and a TG582n LAN port, give the TG a static IP in the C9 subnet and disable DHCP on the TG ( if it isn't already )

[#5]

Once in a blue moon and not for many years I have connected two routers together.  The second router was probably acting as an access point at the end of a long cable.  The way I did this was to connect LAN port to LAN port, given them IP addresses in the same range, disabled DHCP on the second router.  That has always worked.  I don't remember exactly but I was probably using the router with the modem to do the DHCP  LAN address assignment but does it matter?

I've just seen the post from @MisterW and what I have done seems to be the same as his second alternative suggestion.

[#6]

@MisterW Thank you, I will read that slowly and see what I can make of it.

@ReedRichards Thank you, I have been running it the way you suggest for 18 months or so and it is an OK system. However, using the C9 as it should be used with a minimal modem is much simpler conceptually, everything is in the one place; there is no shared responsibility. It also prepares the ground for a future move to fibre. The difficulty with the scheme is that the TG582 in bridge mode does not seem to meet my idea of a minimal modem and the C9 does not compensate.  I tend to the view that if only I understood how they worked properly, then I could sort the problem but they are both too opaque and mysterious and likely to stay that way. Idealism versus pragmatism I suppose.

Any thoughts on Transparent NAT and a still enabled firewall on the TG582?

[#7]

Any thoughts on Transparent NAT and a still enabled firewall on the TG582?

It doesn't matter, the TG582n is not accessible at all from the Internet. It has no IP address since the only public IP is assigned to the PPPoE connection on the C9.