[NBLUG/talk] [OT?] Static DHCP leases from a LinkSys router?

Walter Hansen gandalf at sonic.net
Fri Apr 21 13:13:05 PDT 2006

> here's my two cents...
> i used to have a netgear router that rocked.  it let me assign static
> addresses via dhcp.  then it fried (probably due to a power surge of some
> sort).  i bought a linksys router (non-linux running) to replace it
> because
> i didn't want to spend 100+ on another netgear.  the POS didn't support
> static dhcp assignments.
> i later replaced that with my current wrt54g.  it too, does not do static
> dhcp assigments, but it DOES allow me to put a new distro onto it where i
> have that flexability.  it seems linksys deems static dhcp assigment and
> advanced feature or something like that.  silly people.
> -dustin

I'm simply of the opinion that they feel it's unessicary to define a
static address at the router. It doesn't matter to the router. I've never
met a little router that woudln't let you define a "static route" which is
something else entirely. Little routers don't need to do much although
some come up with some interesting porn blocking capablities and act a bit
like firewalls.

Common Litte router tasks:
perform NAT Network Address Translation
perform DHCP for a set address range
   anything outside this range is by default defined as static
static route routing
   eq route port 80 tcp to address 192.168.0.X
read DHCP from it's upline connector (for dynamic IP addresses)
interact with connection security from upline connector
possibly send/receive RIP or other protocols to talk to other routers
provide DNS services, this may be connected to DHCP
Some small routers allow for a mac address to be linked to an address for
DHCP, but as you can just assign an address and everything works fine this
feature is seldom used.
often little routers allow for a DMZ computer, one that is left on the
outside of the network where all of it's ports are open to attack, I don't
thik I've ever used this. I just make static routes for the nessicary
ports and leave the others closed to outside traffic.

Wireless generally just adds in acess point stuff to this like encryption
and such.

I've gone so far as to create a two networks using three small routers,
where the first router routes to the bottom two and the two networks are
behind them. Since then, i've decided that it makes more sense to me to
put a switch on the top and just connect the routers to that. Currently I
have two internet connections connetecd to the switch and two routers
below that for the two networks, one wireless. I can switch which network
is on which connection at any time easily without going into the phone
room. My old top router used to automatically switch between connections,
but there were issues. I think the switch is cleaner, simpler and faster.
I understand this is a common home setup for a wifi acess point and a
secure wired network.

Probably way to much info.

More information about the talk mailing list