Our head of IT [who never even heard of m0n0wall or pfSense, hes a Windoze-only person] says that: we have a standard D-Link wireless router. one of the ports is marked WAN, the rest are LAN. he says you cannot use the WAN port as an uplink because its feed from other switches upstream, instead of directly off our [satellite] modem. True?
He says we should use it as a switch, only using the LAN ports, putting the feed from upstream switches into one of those LAN ports. Does this make sense? In switches and hubs, all ports are numbered, none of them marked "uplink." He says if port 1 is used as an uplink, the port next to it should be kept vacant, because it wont work. True? We have a 24 port switch [other switches are upstream] which i plugged my laptop into. I cant get a regular [192.168 etc] IP, windoze gives me a useless 169.etc IP and says limited or no connectivity of course. I tried ipconfig/release and ipconfig/renew but that didnt help. So I move downstream to a D-Link wireless router with one of its LAN ports connected to the 24 port switch. Its WAN port is kept vacant for the "reason" discussed above. I plug into another of its LAN ports and I get a regular 192.168.etc IP. This doesnt make sense because im downstream from the 24 port switch which wouldnt give me a regular IP. Im guessing the 24 port switch had no more IPs to give out even though it had vacant ports. Can this be true? -david on Lotus St. :)
_______________________________________________ SoCalFreeNet.org General Discussion List To unsubscribe, please visit: http://socalfreenet.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_socalfreenet.org
