Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.comp.sys.mac > #145854 > unrolled thread

Homesharing problems, maybe network setup

Back to article view | Back to uk.comp.sys.mac

Contents

  Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> - 2020-07-25 09:55 +0000
    Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2020-07-25 20:45 +0100
      Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> - 2020-07-25 20:53 +0000
        Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2020-07-25 22:29 +0100
          Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> - 2020-07-25 22:12 +0000
            Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> - 2020-07-25 22:42 +0000
            Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2020-07-26 08:05 +0100
              Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> - 2020-07-26 07:49 +0000
                Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2020-07-26 10:08 +0100
                  Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> - 2020-07-26 12:07 +0100
                    Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2020-07-26 12:47 +0100
                  Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2020-07-26 20:43 +0100
                    Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-26 20:47 +0000
                    Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> - 2020-07-26 20:47 +0000
                      Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2020-07-26 22:49 +0100
                        Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2020-07-27 10:42 +0100
                          Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> - 2020-07-27 15:00 +0000
                            Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2020-07-27 16:35 +0100
                              Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> - 2020-07-27 16:05 +0000
                                Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2020-07-27 17:32 +0100
                          Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2020-07-27 22:04 +0100
                            Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2020-07-27 23:10 +0100
                              Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> - 2020-07-28 16:28 +0000
                                Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> - 2020-07-28 16:30 +0000
                                  Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2020-07-28 17:59 +0100
                                    Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> - 2020-07-28 18:39 +0000
                                      Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2020-07-28 12:14 -0700
                                        Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> - 2020-07-28 19:23 +0000
                                          Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2020-07-28 13:37 -0700
                                            Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2020-07-28 22:30 +0100
                                              Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> - 2020-07-28 21:45 +0000
                                                Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2020-07-28 15:03 -0700
                                  Re: Homesharing problems, maybe network setup Bernd Froehlich <befr@eaglesoft.de> - 2020-07-29 06:38 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#145854 — Homesharing problems, maybe network setup

I’ve been messing about with the network settings here, as I’m having
trouble with the Home Sharing service.

As mentioned, I have installed this new Mercusys Mesh system, and most of
it work great. However, I found that the Apple TV won’t connect to Home
sharing unless I disconnect Ethernet and use WiFi instead.

Both mobile devices won’t connect at all, they show the loading progress
wheel, then the app quits, that happens on both the iPad Pro and my old
iPhone 6S (both up to date ). I’ve tried resetting, rebooting and such
like. The service is showing up everywhere, but just con’t complete the
connection.

Now, the setup is as the Mercusys set itself up automatically when
installed. The setup is thus:

Plusnet Hub One: Linked to the outside world for broadband (Fibre Extra,
which I get 67meg down and 19meg up). WiFi disabled, DHCP on as address
192.168.0.254, supplying in the range 50-100.

Mercusys (Halo S12) Mesh: Auto setup as 192.168.0.1, and DHCP on to the
WiFi devices (there must be appropriate settings to link to the PlusNet
router, as the Halo gets an IP address in the 192.168.1.x range). I set the
range to 101-199.

Now my question is, what do I need to do to get the HomeSharing to work
across the two parts of the network. I tried turning off the second DHCP
server, but just ended up losing connection, and had to reset the boxes to
start again.

Cheers.

-- 
Andy H

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#145866

Andy Hewitt wrote:

[snip]

> Now, the setup is as the Mercusys set itself up automatically when
> installed. The setup is thus:
> 
> Plusnet Hub One: Linked to the outside world for broadband (Fibre Extra,
> which I get 67meg down and 19meg up). WiFi disabled, DHCP on as address
> 192.168.0.254, supplying in the range 50-100.
> 
> Mercusys (Halo S12) Mesh: Auto setup as 192.168.0.1, and DHCP on to the
> WiFi devices (there must be appropriate settings to link to the PlusNet
> router, as the Halo gets an IP address in the 192.168.1.x range). I set the
> range to 101-199.

What you've written does not make sense.

Everything must have an IP address in the 192.168.0.0 / 255.255.255.0 subnet

Computers and similar devices should use DHCP and get their IP addresses 
from the Plusnet Hub One.  For ease of management all the WiFi access 
points should have static IP addresses outside the 192.168.0.50-100 
range.  This is because you need to access them in order to put in the 
credentials for their WiFi connections

You should then be able to connect a computer (initially also configured 
with a static IP address) by Ethernet cable to a mesh device and confirm 
that is has the correct SSID and security key to communicate by WiFi 
with the Plusnet router.  This computer should then be able to ping the 
Plusnet router.  Repeat this for each mesh device in turn.  Keep 
documentation of the IP addresses you have configured in the mesh devices.

Then from a computer connected by Ethernet cable to the Plusnet router 
you should be able to ping all the mesh devices using their individual 
IP addresses.

A computer (or other wireless client) should now be able to establish a 
WiFi connection to its nearest mesh device, should get an IP adddress by 
DHCP from the Plusnet router, and should then be able to ping the 
Plusnet router.  You should be able to find out from the device what IP 
address it has been allocated (and this might also be evident in the 
managemet pages of the Plusnet router), and from the computer connected 
by Ethernet cable to the Plusnet router you should be able to ping the 
wireless device.

Only when every device on the LAN can ping every other device on the LAN 
should you start to worry about HomeSharing

> Now my question is, what do I need to do to get the HomeSharing to work
> across the two parts of the network. I tried turning off the second DHCP
> server, but just ended up losing connection, and had to reset the boxes to
> start again.

Two DHCP servers is a VERY BAD IDEA in your configuration.


-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145867

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> Andy Hewitt wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> Now, the setup is as the Mercusys set itself up automatically when
>> installed. The setup is thus:
>> 
>> Plusnet Hub One: Linked to the outside world for broadband (Fibre Extra,
>> which I get 67meg down and 19meg up). WiFi disabled, DHCP on as address
>> 192.168.0.254, supplying in the range 50-100.
>> 
>> Mercusys (Halo S12) Mesh: Auto setup as 192.168.0.1, and DHCP on to the
>> WiFi devices (there must be appropriate settings to link to the PlusNet
>> router, as the Halo gets an IP address in the 192.168.1.x range). I set the
>> range to 101-199.
> 
> What you've written does not make sense.

Yeah, it’s not what I was expecting either, but everything works, apart
from HomeSharing.

> Everything must have an IP address in the 192.168.0.0 / 255.255.255.0 subnet

Or do you mean the 192.168.1.0 / 255.... subset (the Plusnet router is on
that, the Mesh is on 192.168.0.1).

> Computers and similar devices should use DHCP and get their IP addresses 
> from the Plusnet Hub One.  For ease of management all the WiFi access 
> points should have static IP addresses outside the 192.168.0.50-100 
> range.  This is because you need to access them in order to put in the 
> credentials for their WiFi connections

Yes, I’ve tried to get to that, but the Mercusys setup is only administered
from a WiFi connection (obviously why it’s one of the cheapest kits around
I suppose). If the Mesh boxes lose connectivity with the Internet, I can no
longer admin them, and have to do a reset, which ends up back with a
192.168.0.1 subset.

> You should then be able to connect a computer (initially also configured 
> with a static IP address) by Ethernet cable to a mesh device and confirm 
> that is has the correct SSID and security key to communicate by WiFi 
> with the Plusnet router.  This computer should then be able to ping the 
> Plusnet router.  Repeat this for each mesh device in turn.  Keep 
> documentation of the IP addresses you have configured in the mesh devices.

The manual only documents WiFi for admin, and implies that’s the only way
to so it. In any case, it only needs the master box setting up, the rest
are simply ‘paired’ with it later, they get an IP address, but there seems
to be no way to edit this manually.

> Then from a computer connected by Ethernet cable to the Plusnet router 
> you should be able to ping all the mesh devices using their individual 
> IP addresses.

That’s the problem with everything going WiFi I guess.

I’ve just tried pinging the Plusnet router from the mesh box, and that
works fine, and the mesh box shows up on the network map in the Plusnet
router (best I can check out quickly here right now).

> A computer (or other wireless client) should now be able to establish a 
> WiFi connection to its nearest mesh device, should get an IP adddress by 
> DHCP from the Plusnet router, and should then be able to ping the 
> Plusnet router.  You should be able to find out from the device what IP 
> address it has been allocated (and this might also be evident in the 
> managemet pages of the Plusnet router), and from the computer connected 
> by Ethernet cable to the Plusnet router you should be able to ping the 
> wireless device.
> 
> Only when every device on the LAN can ping every other device on the LAN 
> should you start to worry about HomeSharing
> 
>> Now my question is, what do I need to do to get the HomeSharing to work
>> across the two parts of the network. I tried turning off the second DHCP
>> server, but just ended up losing connection, and had to reset the boxes to
>> start again.
> 
> Two DHCP servers is a VERY BAD IDEA in your configuration.

Yeah, that much I was aware of, trouble is, the installation of the mesh
boxes is pretty automated. There are plenty of advanced settings though, so
I think it’s just a matter of knowing what to put into the right boxes to
get the Plusnet Router working as the only DHCP server.

It does look like a bit of a messy setup now I’ve delved in a bit more. It
is working though, and the workaround was to switch the AppleTV to WiFi
connection (not a problem, as it’s getting an 867Mb connection), and seems
to have caused no streaming issues,

The rest of the stuff on Ethernet doesn’t communicate with anything else
anyway.

Thank you for you reply though.

-- 
Andy H

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145868

Andy Hewitt wrote:
> Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>> Andy Hewitt wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Now, the setup is as the Mercusys set itself up automatically when
>>> installed. The setup is thus:
>>>
>>> Plusnet Hub One: Linked to the outside world for broadband (Fibre Extra,
>>> which I get 67meg down and 19meg up). WiFi disabled, DHCP on as address
>>> 192.168.0.254, supplying in the range 50-100.
>>>
>>> Mercusys (Halo S12) Mesh: Auto setup as 192.168.0.1, and DHCP on to the
>>> WiFi devices (there must be appropriate settings to link to the PlusNet
>>> router, as the Halo gets an IP address in the 192.168.1.x range). I set the
>>> range to 101-199.
>>
>> What you've written does not make sense.
> 
> Yeah, it’s not what I was expecting either, but everything works, apart
> from HomeSharing.

[snip]

OK I've tried to read the manual at 
<https://static.mercusys.com/manual/1910080045_Halo_S12_UG_REV1.0.020191227055946.pdf> 
on the assumption that it describes the device you have.

It's clear that they expect you to use only the mesh devices to connect 
your client devices.  Further, they might expect that you only use WiFi 
for all the clients although there are two RJ45 sockets on each device.

Even more importantly, they expect you to achieve your internet 
connection via an Ethernet modem, not a router.

You can (probably) configure your Plusnet router as a modem - it might 
not be easy.

But you can use the Plusnet device as router because most applications 
such as email and web browsing will tolerate the double-NAT that this 
implies.

So, this means:

Disable the WiFi service on the Plusnet router.

Disconnect everything from the LAN ports on the Plusnet router, and 
connect ONLY ONE Mesh device.

Cover the unused LAN ports on the Plusnet router to prevent anybody 
using them by mistake.

Set up the Mesh devices as instructed.  Note that the WAN IP address 
reported by the primary Mesh device will be the IP address issued by the 
Plusnet router, not a real public IP address at all - unless you 
configure the Plusnet router into Modem Mode.  You should then be able 
to ping from any client device to any other client device, and to any of 
the Mesh devices.  But it is likely that you won't be able to ping your 
Plusnet router - whch makes debugging the internet connection difficult 
if the need ever arises.


-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145869

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> Andy Hewitt wrote:

> [snip]
> 
> OK I've tried to read the manual at 
> <https://static.mercusys.com/manual/1910080045_Halo_S12_UG_REV1.0.020191227055946.pdf> 
> on the assumption that it describes the device you have.

That’s the one.

> It's clear that they expect you to use only the mesh devices to connect 
> your client devices.  Further, they might expect that you only use WiFi 
> for all the clients although there are two RJ45 sockets on each device.

Yes, I have a BT YouView box plugged into owner in the bedroom. Works fine,

Funnily enough the downstairs YouView box is plugged into the Ethernet on
the PlusNet Hub One, and also works fine, and even more weirdly, I can
remote control it from the App on my iPhone/iPad from the WiFi.

> Even more importantly, they expect you to achieve your internet 
> connection via an Ethernet modem, not a router.

Yes, although it does include instructions for ‘conventional’ internet too.

> You can (probably) configure your Plusnet router as a modem - it might 
> not be easy.

Yeah, they do lock them down quite tight in Firmware (you can’t even add
your own DNS server setting - i.e. OpenDNS).

I do actually have a TP-Link Modem/Router I was using as a WiFi extender
(using Homeplugs), which is not redundant, might be worth trying to
configure that as a modem only (seems to have better options for such
things IIRC.

> But you can use the Plusnet device as router because most applications 
> such as email and web browsing will tolerate the double-NAT that this 
> implies.
> 
> So, this means:
> 
> Disable the WiFi service on the Plusnet router.

Done that already.

> Disconnect everything from the LAN ports on the Plusnet router, and 
> connect ONLY ONE Mesh device.
> 
> Cover the unused LAN ports on the Plusnet router to prevent anybody 
> using them by mistake.
> 
> Set up the Mesh devices as instructed.  Note that the WAN IP address 
> reported by the primary Mesh device will be the IP address issued by the 
> Plusnet router, not a real public IP address at all - unless you 
> configure the Plusnet router into Modem Mode.  

Yeah, I spotted that, the mesh box gets a 192.168.1.x number assigned to
it.

> You should then be able 
> to ping from any client device to any other client device, and to any of 
> the Mesh devices.  But it is likely that you won't be able to ping your 
> Plusnet router - whch makes debugging the internet connection difficult 
> if the need ever arises.

Ok, so as it’s all setup anyway, simply unplug the Ethernet connected
devices from the router, and use WiFi, or the spare Ethernet port on the
Halo box should do it.

I did ping the PlusNet router from the Halo admin page, and it came back
fine, and I can still access the PlusNet router admin pages, even from my
iPad over WiFi.

It’s only been the AppleTV home sharing that’s been a problem.

Cheers.

-- 
Andy H

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145870

Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:
> Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

>> You can (probably) configure your Plusnet router as a modem - it might 
>> not be easy.
> 
> Yeah, they do lock them down quite tight in Firmware (you can’t even add
> your own DNS server setting - i.e. OpenDNS).

A quick check in the PN forums confirms that it can’t be set to router only
mode.

> I do actually have a TP-Link Modem/Router I was using as a WiFi extender
> (using Homeplugs), which is not redundant, might be worth trying to
> configure that as a modem only (seems to have better options for such
> things IIRC.

So this might be a better option.

Cheers 

-- 
Andy H

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145876

Andy Hewitt wrote:

[snip]

>> You should then be able
>> to ping from any client device to any other client device, and to any of
>> the Mesh devices.  But it is likely that you won't be able to ping your
>> Plusnet router - whch makes debugging the internet connection difficult
>> if the need ever arises.
> 
> Ok, so as it’s all setup anyway, simply unplug the Ethernet connected
> devices from the router, and use WiFi, or the spare Ethernet port on the
> Halo box should do it.

But you've already disbled the WiFi on the Plusnet router so that won't 
work.  So use an Ethernet cabled connection to the router for debugging 
the internet connection.

> I did ping the PlusNet router from the Halo admin page, and it came back
> fine, and I can still access the PlusNet router admin pages, even from my
> iPad over WiFi.

OK so that means the Mesh master device routes from its LAN to its WAN 
port - good.  What it also means is that a device connected directly to 
the Plusnet router (but you should not have one) will not be able to 
"see" anthing on the LAN implemented by the Mesh devices, unless you 
configure the Mesh master device to allow port forwarding.

> It’s only been the AppleTV home sharing that’s been a problem.

So this might just be a problem with the Apple TV.

To test this, is it possible to disconnect all the Mesh devices and 
connect your Apple TV by Ethernet cable to your router?  Then also 
connect whatever device shares with the TV - if necessary by WiFi to the 
(re-enabled) WiFi service on the router?

That way you've completely elimininated the Mesh devices.  Does home 
sharing then work?


-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145877

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> Andy Hewitt wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>> You should then be able
>>> to ping from any client device to any other client device, and to any of
>>> the Mesh devices.  But it is likely that you won't be able to ping your
>>> Plusnet router - whch makes debugging the internet connection difficult
>>> if the need ever arises.
>> 
>> Ok, so as it’s all setup anyway, simply unplug the Ethernet connected
>> devices from the router, and use WiFi, or the spare Ethernet port on the
>> Halo box should do it.
> 
> But you've already disbled the WiFi on the Plusnet router so that won't 
> work.  So use an Ethernet cabled connection to the router for debugging 
> the internet connection.

OK, got that. I was just thinking about how it gets used generally, i.e.
don’t use the Ethernet ports on the Plusnet router, unless I need to debug.

>> I did ping the PlusNet router from the Halo admin page, and it came back
>> fine, and I can still access the PlusNet router admin pages, even from my
>> iPad over WiFi.
> 
> OK so that means the Mesh master device routes from its LAN to its WAN 
> port - good.  What it also means is that a device connected directly to 
> the Plusnet router (but you should not have one) will not be able to 
> "see" anthing on the LAN implemented by the Mesh devices, unless you 
> configure the Mesh master device to allow port forwarding.

OK, got that, as the other devices connected to the Plusnet router only
need to get Internet connection, then that shouldn’t matter then.

>> It’s only been the AppleTV home sharing that’s been a problem.
> 
> So this might just be a problem with the Apple TV.
> 
> To test this, is it possible to disconnect all the Mesh devices and 
> connect your Apple TV by Ethernet cable to your router?  Then also 
> connect whatever device shares with the TV - if necessary by WiFi to the 
> (re-enabled) WiFi service on the router?
> 
> That way you've completely elimininated the Mesh devices.  Does home 
> sharing then work?

No need, it was working that way before I put the Mesh system in, albeit as
flaky as the HomeSharing system is anyway, but yeah, it worked. And it
works if I connect it to the Mesh WiFi.

I think the main problem, now, is perhaps the PlusNet Hub, which is
inflexible in setup options. However, now I understand that all a little
better, thank you, at least I know where I can start looking if anything
does go wrong.

Cheers.

-- 
Andy H

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145878

Andy Hewitt wrote:

[snip]

>>> It’s only been the AppleTV home sharing that’s been a problem.
>>
>> So this might just be a problem with the Apple TV.
>>
>> To test this, is it possible to disconnect all the Mesh devices and
>> connect your Apple TV by Ethernet cable to your router?  Then also
>> connect whatever device shares with the TV - if necessary by WiFi to the
>> (re-enabled) WiFi service on the router?
>>
>> That way you've completely elimininated the Mesh devices.  Does home
>> sharing then work?
> 
> No need, it was working that way before I put the Mesh system in, albeit as
> flaky as the HomeSharing system is anyway,

Why is HomeSharing flaky?  Do other users here see it as flaky?

> but yeah, it worked. And it
> works if I connect it to the Mesh WiFi.

So why are you saying it doesn't work????????????????????

It's now obvious from the Mesh documentation that only things on the LAN 
implemented by the Mesh devices will communicate with each other.

> I think the main problem, now, is perhaps the PlusNet Hub, which is
> inflexible in setup options. However, now I understand that all a little
> better, thank you, at least I know where I can start looking if anything
> does go wrong.

The limitations of the Plusnet router are not very relevant here.  The 
only possible problem you have is that double-NAT might cause some 
websites to break (things like VoIP or video conferencing) in which case 
using a router that can be configured in Modem mode, or configuring the 
Mesh master device as an access point only, rather than a router - these 
might be your options.

There's nothing in the Mesh documentation to explain how you would 
disable the router function of the Mesh master device; but in essence 
you would simply give it a static IP address in the Plusnet router's 
subnet then turn off its DHCP server.  You would do this using a 
computer connected by Ethernet to the Mesh master device, then once 
configured, connect the mesh master device to the Plusnet router by 
Ethernet cable.  Other routers can be configured as access points or 
simple network switches using this technique; it remains to be seen 
whether the Mesh device can be.


-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145881

On 26/07/2020 10:08, Graham J wrote:
> Andy Hewitt wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>>> It’s only been the AppleTV home sharing that’s been a problem.
>>>
>>> So this might just be a problem with the Apple TV.
>>>
>>> To test this, is it possible to disconnect all the Mesh devices and
>>> connect your Apple TV by Ethernet cable to your router?  Then also
>>> connect whatever device shares with the TV - if necessary by WiFi to the
>>> (re-enabled) WiFi service on the router?
>>>
>>> That way you've completely elimininated the Mesh devices.  Does home
>>> sharing then work?
>>
>> No need, it was working that way before I put the Mesh system in, 
>> albeit as
>> flaky as the HomeSharing system is anyway,
> 
> Why is HomeSharing flaky?  Do other users here see it as flaky?

I've always had trouble getting it to stay working, often having to go 
through a sequence of rebooting my iMac and/or rebooting the Apple TV. 
Once it connects, it's been fine.

>> but yeah, it worked. And it
>> works if I connect it to the Mesh WiFi.
> 
> So why are you saying it doesn't work????????????????????

I didn't, I originally said "I found that the Apple TV won’t connect to 
Home sharing unless I disconnect Ethernet and use Wi-Fi instead."

> It's now obvious from the Mesh documentation that only things on the LAN 
> implemented by the Mesh devices will communicate with each other.

Yes, that much does see, clear, and I understood that a couple of 
replies ago.

>> I think the main problem, now, is perhaps the PlusNet Hub, which is
>> inflexible in setup options. However, now I understand that all a little
>> better, thank you, at least I know where I can start looking if anything
>> does go wrong.
> 
> The limitations of the Plusnet router are not very relevant here.  The 
> only possible problem you have is that double-NAT might cause some 
> websites to break (things like VoIP or video conferencing) in which case 
> using a router that can be configured in Modem mode, or configuring the 
> Mesh master device as an access point only, rather than a router - these 
> might be your options.

That's what I was trying to do, but without success, probably not helped 
by the fact that it can't be administered by Ethernet. I've tried some 
searching, but only get reviews, or TP-Link online documentation.

Looks like the limitations are actually in both systems.

> There's nothing in the Mesh documentation to explain how you would 
> disable the router function of the Mesh master device; but in essence 
> you would simply give it a static IP address in the Plusnet router's 
> subnet then turn off its DHCP server.  You would do this using a 
> computer connected by Ethernet to the Mesh master device, then once 
> configured, connect the mesh master device to the Plusnet router by 
> Ethernet cable.  Other routers can be configured as access points or 
> simple network switches using this technique; it remains to be seen 
> whether the Mesh device can be.

Yes, the documentation doesn't show anything for connecting to the Mesh 
by Ethernet, only Wi-Fi. It looks like it replies on automated 
configuration, and just gets something that kind of works for most stuff.

I can see why this kit is so cheap, but I at least know how to 
workaround it. If I have to inclination, I might try using the TP-Link 
router instead, as that does have options for AP/Bridge etc.

Cheers.

-- 
Andy H

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145882

Andy Hewitt wrote:

[snip]

>>
>> Why is HomeSharing flaky?  Do other users here see it as flaky?
> 
> I've always had trouble getting it to stay working, often having to go 
> through a sequence of rebooting my iMac and/or rebooting the Apple TV. 
> Once it connects, it's been fine.
> 
>>> but yeah, it worked. And it
>>> works if I connect it to the Mesh WiFi.
>>
>> So why are you saying it doesn't work????????????????????
> 
> I didn't, I originally said "I found that the Apple TV won’t connect to 
> Home sharing unless I disconnect Ethernet and use Wi-Fi instead."

Given that your Ethernet would have been connecting to your Plusnet 
router, and with what we now know about the Mesh devices, this isn't 
surprising.

> Yes, the documentation doesn't show anything for connecting to the Mesh 
> by Ethernet, only Wi-Fi. It looks like it replies on automated 
> configuration, and just gets something that kind of works for most stuff.

Did you actually try connecting a computer directly to the Mesh by 
Ethernet, but not connected in any way to the Plusnet router, and 
checking whether the computer got an IP address?


-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145886

On 26/07/2020 10:08, Graham J wrote:

>> I think the main problem, now, is perhaps the PlusNet Hub, which is
>> inflexible in setup options. However, now I understand that all a little
>> better, thank you, at least I know where I can start looking if anything
>> does go wrong.
> 
> The limitations of the Plusnet router are not very relevant here.  The 
> only possible problem you have is that double-NAT might cause some 
> websites to break (things like VoIP or video conferencing) in which case 
> using a router that can be configured in Modem mode, or configuring the 
> Mesh master device as an access point only, rather than a router - these 
> might be your options.
> 
> There's nothing in the Mesh documentation to explain how you would 
> disable the router function of the Mesh master device; but in essence 
> you would simply give it a static IP address in the Plusnet router's 
> subnet then turn off its DHCP server.  You would do this using a 
> computer connected by Ethernet to the Mesh master device, then once 
> configured, connect the mesh master device to the Plusnet router by 
> Ethernet cable.  Other routers can be configured as access points or 
> simple network switches using this technique; it remains to be seen 
> whether the Mesh device can be.

I don't think this is Andy's setup. The details in the thread are 
scattered and incomplete but what I think he has is:

Plusnet Hub One (PHO) connected to the phoneline/Internet in normal 
router mode[1]. These things have the usual 4xLAN and 1xWAN 
wired-Ethernet/RJ45 sockets on the back. The master mesh must therefore 
be connected to one of the LAN ports and other laptops/PCs to the 
others. The WAN port should be empty. (If not then it might auto-detect 
and become another LAN port.)

The PHO is set to use subnet 192.168.1.0/24, with a gateway address of 
192.168.1.254 and has DHCP configured to issue addresses in the range 
50..100.

The Mercusys, because it is connected by Ethernet, gets allocated (by 
the PHO's DHCP) address 192.168.1.x where x might vary. It provides WiFi 
and devices that connect by WiFi get allocated addresses in the range 
192.168.0.101..199. Note that this is a different network to the PHO 
(provided they are both /24s).

So, provided the Mercusys has its default gateway set to 192.168.1.254 
then it should all more or less work. This isn't double NATing because o 
the two different networks in use - x.y.0.0 versus x.y.1.0. And the two 
DHCP servers doesn't matter because, again, they are serving separate 
subnets.

Of course, if Andy has typo'd one of those network addresses then all 
bets are off!

So, to summarise, if the above is correct:
- wired devices plugged into the PHO are on network 192.168.1.0/24 and 
should have their default gateway set to 192.168.1.254
- wifi devices are on network 192.168.0.0/24 and should have their 
default gateway set to (I presume) 192.168.0.1 (unless the Mercusys 
manual says otherwise)
- wired devices connected directly into mesh units should be treated as 
WiFi connected


And finally, to HomeSharing... If the Mac hosting the media is connected 
by wire to the PHO and the Apple TV is on WiFi, or vice versa, then ... 
<drum roll> I'm not sure if it is a supported configuration or not!

According to Apple, HomeSharing just needs Internet connectivity (to 
allow the AppleID to be checked) and connectivity to the media source 
(which you have). However the latter may also need to be via the same 
LAN segment (to let Bonjour or similar) work (which this config doesn't 
have).

So, both on wired or both on Ethernet will work.

In the interests of simplicity and reduced hassle in the future, it 
would probably be best to use just a single LAN; let the PHO be the DHCP 
source for that LAN; and re-configure the mesh master to do wifi only.

HTH

[1] In one of the posts Andy wrote: "A quick check in the PN forums 
confirms that it can’t be set to router only mode." I assume that was 
meant to say "... can't be set to modem mode".

-- 
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey
England
(bruce at scorecrow dot com)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145887

On 26 Jul 2020 at 20:43:26 BST, "Bruce Horrocks" <07.013@scorecrow.com>
wrote:

> In the interests of simplicity and reduced hassle in the future, it 
> would probably be best to use just a single LAN; let the PHO be the DHCP 
> source for that LAN; and re-configure the mesh master to do wifi only.

On some mesh master boxes you can avoid using the router part just by not
using the WAN port, using a LAN/switch port instead. There'll still be a
problem if he can't set both to use the same network range through, either all
192.168.1.x or all 192.168.0.x

	Cheers - Jaimie
-- 
If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product
being sold.
-- blue_beetle

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145888

Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
> On 26/07/2020 10:08, Graham J wrote:
> 
>>> I think the main problem, now, is perhaps the PlusNet Hub, which is
>>> inflexible in setup options. However, now I understand that all a little
>>> better, thank you, at least I know where I can start looking if anything
>>> does go wrong.
>> 
>> The limitations of the Plusnet router are not very relevant here.  The 
>> only possible problem you have is that double-NAT might cause some 
>> websites to break (things like VoIP or video conferencing) in which case 
>> using a router that can be configured in Modem mode, or configuring the 
>> Mesh master device as an access point only, rather than a router - these 
>> might be your options.
>> 
>> There's nothing in the Mesh documentation to explain how you would 
>> disable the router function of the Mesh master device; but in essence 
>> you would simply give it a static IP address in the Plusnet router's 
>> subnet then turn off its DHCP server.  You would do this using a 
>> computer connected by Ethernet to the Mesh master device, then once 
>> configured, connect the mesh master device to the Plusnet router by 
>> Ethernet cable.  Other routers can be configured as access points or 
>> simple network switches using this technique; it remains to be seen 
>> whether the Mesh device can be.
> 
> I don't think this is Andy's setup. The details in the thread are 
> scattered and incomplete but what I think he has is:
> 
> Plusnet Hub One (PHO) connected to the phoneline/Internet in normal 
> router mode[1]. These things have the usual 4xLAN and 1xWAN 
> wired-Ethernet/RJ45 sockets on the back. The master mesh must therefore 
> be connected to one of the LAN ports and other laptops/PCs to the 
> others. The WAN port should be empty. (If not then it might auto-detect 
> and become another LAN port.)
> 
> The PHO is set to use subnet 192.168.1.0/24, with a gateway address of 
> 192.168.1.254 and has DHCP configured to issue addresses in the range 
> 50..100.
> 
> The Mercusys, because it is connected by Ethernet, gets allocated (by 
> the PHO's DHCP) address 192.168.1.x where x might vary. It provides WiFi 
> and devices that connect by WiFi get allocated addresses in the range 
> 192.168.0.101..199. Note that this is a different network to the PHO 
> (provided they are both /24s).
> 
> So, provided the Mercusys has its default gateway set to 192.168.1.254 
> then it should all more or less work. This isn't double NATing because o 
> the two different networks in use - x.y.0.0 versus x.y.1.0. And the two 
> DHCP servers doesn't matter because, again, they are serving separate 
> subnets.
> 
> Of course, if Andy has typo'd one of those network addresses then all 
> bets are off!

No, all of that looks about spot on to me.

> So, to summarise, if the above is correct:
> - wired devices plugged into the PHO are on network 192.168.1.0/24 and 
> should have their default gateway set to 192.168.1.254
> - wifi devices are on network 192.168.0.0/24 and should have their 
> default gateway set to (I presume) 192.168.0.1 (unless the Mercusys 
> manual says otherwise)
> - wired devices connected directly into mesh units should be treated as 
> WiFi connected

Looks good so far, exactly what I have here.  A BT/Humax YouView TV box is
connected and working perfectly fine using Ethernet off the Mesh box, and
indeed so did my iMac, but I’ve left that on WiFi now, as I didn’t see much
point in having another level in the connection.

> And finally, to HomeSharing... If the Mac hosting the media is connected 
> by wire to the PHO and the Apple TV is on WiFi, or vice versa, then ... 
> <drum roll> I'm not sure if it is a supported configuration or not!

Yeah, other way round it was, my iMac is on the Mesh WiFi, and the Apple TV
is/was Ethernet to the PHO.

> According to Apple, HomeSharing just needs Internet connectivity (to 
> allow the AppleID to be checked) and connectivity to the media source 
> (which you have). However the latter may also need to be via the same 
> LAN segment (to let Bonjour or similar) work (which this config doesn't 
> have).

OK, understood.

> So, both on wired or both on Ethernet will work.

Yes, that seems to be working that way.

> In the interests of simplicity and reduced hassle in the future, it 
> would probably be best to use just a single LAN; let the PHO be the DHCP 
> source for that LAN; and re-configure the mesh master to do wifi only.

Sigh, yes, that was the result I was trying to get to, but attempting to
configure the Mesh master to do that just results in me not being able to
connect to it, and having to do a hard reset to get it back to where it
was. According to the manual, I should just need to turn off the DHCP
server in the mesh system, but that resulted in WiFi being detected, but no
Internet connection. So I suspect it no longer talks to the PHO box, and
because of that, the Mesh admin won’t work either (it just display a ‘no
Internet’ error).

> HTH
> 
> [1] In one of the posts Andy wrote: "A quick check in the PN forums 
> confirms that it can’t be set to router only mode." I assume that was 
> meant to say "... can't be set to modem mode".

Yes, sorry, that was a silly brain-freeze thing.

So, if I can’t get the Mesh to work as an AP only, then perhaps my thought
of trying the TP-Link modem/router I got might work instead, PN do allow
you to use a third party modem/router, so as long as I can configure that
to modem only, it should sort everything out.

Although, the Mesh WiFi seems fast and stable enough, that the point has
become moot really. I’m at a stage where it’s all kind of working, so
probably better just to leave as is.

I still can’t get everything directly connected to the Mesh as there aren’t
enough ports for the devices that have Ethernet only, but they don’t need
to connect to the rest of the network, only the Internet, which works fine
off the PHO.

Cheers.

-- 
Andy H

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145889

On 26/07/2020 21:47, Andy Hewitt wrote:
> So, if I can’t get the Mesh to work as an AP only, then perhaps my thought
> of trying the TP-Link modem/router I got might work instead, PN do allow
> you to use a third party modem/router, so as long as I can configure that
> to modem only, it should sort everything out.

A quick and dirty hack would be to convert both the 196.168.x.0 networks 
from /24 to /16 by changing the netmasks (on the hub and the master 
mesh) from 255.255.255.0 to 255.255.0.0. Restart all connected devices 
(or force a new DHCP lease at least) to pick up the change and this 
should allow Bonjour responses/requests from the AppleTV box to be 
'visible' over both wired and wifi networks.

-- 
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey
England
(bruce at scorecrow dot com)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145891

Bruce Horrocks wrote:
> On 26/07/2020 21:47, Andy Hewitt wrote:
>> So, if I can’t get the Mesh to work as an AP only, then perhaps my 
>> thought
>> of trying the TP-Link modem/router I got might work instead, PN do allow
>> you to use a third party modem/router, so as long as I can configure that
>> to modem only, it should sort everything out.
> 
> A quick and dirty hack would be to convert both the 196.168.x.0 networks 
> from /24 to /16 by changing the netmasks (on the hub and the master 
> mesh) from 255.255.255.0 to 255.255.0.0. Restart all connected devices 
> (or force a new DHCP lease at least) to pick up the change and this 
> should allow Bonjour responses/requests from the AppleTV box to be 
> 'visible' over both wired and wifi networks.
> 

A much better idea would be to set up routing between the two subnets.

Correcting for typos or misuderstandings of earlier posts I now assume:

= Plusnet router subnet 192.168.1.0 / 24 with router at 192.168.1.254 
has several spare Ethernet LAN ports.  Its WiFi service is off.  There 
is NAT between its LAN and the internet.

= Mesh subnet 192.168.0.0 / 24 with master Mesh device at 192.168.0.1 
which connects by Ethernet cable to one of the ports on the Plusnet 
router.  The Mesh device is also a router.  It provides NAT between its 
192.168.0.0 LAN and its WAN port on the Plusnet 192.168.1.0 LAN.  So for 
any device on the Mesh LAN there is double-NAT between it and the 
internet; but as I suggested earlier this is unlikely to be a problem.

This arangement would all work well provided that ***everything*** is 
connected to the Mesh LAN.  Buth there aren't sufficient RJ45 sockets on 
the Mesh devices to allow connection of those devices which only have 
Ethernet ports and do not have WiFi.  Ths simplest solution would be to 
connect a network switch to the nearest Mesh device.

If you connect devices to the Plusnet router they will see the internet 
OK, they might be able to see the WAN IP of the primary Mesh device, but 
they won't be able to see anything on the Mesh LAN.  This is why any 
sort of sharing from a device on one LAN to a device on the other will fail.

 From the Mesh LAN, devices can "see" things on the Plusnet router's 
LAN; this is what a router does.  But the reverse is not true.  You 
could set up static routes to achieve this:

In the primary Mesh device traffic arriving at its WAN port for 
addresses on its LAN subnet is allowed into the router.  It appears to 
be possible to set up such a route, according to the manual.

Devices on the Plusnet LAN trying to send traffic to the Mesh LAN 
(192.168.0.x) will actually deliver those packets to the Plusnet router 
(the default gateway)- this is what TCP/IP does using the netmask.

In the Plusnet router, traffic for the Mesh LAN (192.168.0.x) would 
normally be discarded since it is not supposed to be sent onto the 
internet.  You require a static route to send that traffic to the IP 
address of the WAN port of the primary Mesh device.  Whether the Plusnet 
router can be configured with a suitable static route I have no idea.

Alternatively, as I tried to explain previously, the solution would be 
to disable the router function of the primary Mesh device, so that it 
simply becomes a wireless access point on the Plusnet router's subnet. 
The Mesh manual is not helpful in this respect; but I think it ought to 
be possible.  The solution will be to ignore the manual and work from 
first principles, connecting a computer by Ethernet cable to a LAN port 
on the primary Mesh device, and ***NOT*** having that Mesh device 
connected to anything else.  The computer should get an IP address, and 
should show the Mesh device as the default gateway; this should allow 
you to open a web browser at that address.  If that doesn't work then 
the Mesh device is designed to be unhelpful.

Using a router configured as a modem to make the intenet connection does 
not help, because its LAN ports are not on the Mesh subnet.


-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145904

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> Bruce Horrocks wrote:
>> On 26/07/2020 21:47, Andy Hewitt wrote:
>>> So, if I can’t get the Mesh to work as an AP only, then perhaps my 
>>> thought
>>> of trying the TP-Link modem/router I got might work instead, PN do allow
>>> you to use a third party modem/router, so as long as I can configure that
>>> to modem only, it should sort everything out.
>> 
>> A quick and dirty hack would be to convert both the 196.168.x.0 networks 
>> from /24 to /16 by changing the netmasks (on the hub and the master 
>> mesh) from 255.255.255.0 to 255.255.0.0. Restart all connected devices 
>> (or force a new DHCP lease at least) to pick up the change and this 
>> should allow Bonjour responses/requests from the AppleTV box to be 
>> 'visible' over both wired and wifi networks.
>> 
> 
> A much better idea would be to set up routing between the two subnets.
> 
> Correcting for typos or misuderstandings of earlier posts I now assume:
> 
> = Plusnet router subnet 192.168.1.0 / 24 with router at 192.168.1.254 
> has several spare Ethernet LAN ports.  Its WiFi service is off.  There 
> is NAT between its LAN and the internet.
> 
> = Mesh subnet 192.168.0.0 / 24 with master Mesh device at 192.168.0.1 
> which connects by Ethernet cable to one of the ports on the Plusnet 
> router.  The Mesh device is also a router.  It provides NAT between its 
> 192.168.0.0 LAN and its WAN port on the Plusnet 192.168.1.0 LAN.  So for 
> any device on the Mesh LAN there is double-NAT between it and the 
> internet; but as I suggested earlier this is unlikely to be a problem.

That’s how it auto sets itself up using the ‘smart’ configuration tools.

> This arangement would all work well provided that ***everything*** is 
> connected to the Mesh LAN.  Buth there aren't sufficient RJ45 sockets on 
> the Mesh devices to allow connection of those devices which only have 
> Ethernet ports and do not have WiFi.  Ths simplest solution would be to 
> connect a network switch to the nearest Mesh device.

That could be an easier option overall.

> If you connect devices to the Plusnet router they will see the internet 
> OK, they might be able to see the WAN IP of the primary Mesh device, but 
> they won't be able to see anything on the Mesh LAN.  This is why any 
> sort of sharing from a device on one LAN to a device on the other will fail.

Got that, for most devices that doesn’t matter, they only need to see the
Internet.

> From the Mesh LAN, devices can "see" things on the Plusnet router's 
> LAN; this is what a router does.  But the reverse is not true.  You 
> could set up static routes to achieve this:
> 
> In the primary Mesh device traffic arriving at its WAN port for 
> addresses on its LAN subnet is allowed into the router.  It appears to 
> be possible to set up such a route, according to the manual.
> 
> Devices on the Plusnet LAN trying to send traffic to the Mesh LAN 
> (192.168.0.x) will actually deliver those packets to the Plusnet router 
> (the default gateway)- this is what TCP/IP does using the netmask.

Yes, that seems to be about right.

> In the Plusnet router, traffic for the Mesh LAN (192.168.0.x) would 
> normally be discarded since it is not supposed to be sent onto the 
> internet.  You require a static route to send that traffic to the IP 
> address of the WAN port of the primary Mesh device.  Whether the Plusnet 
> router can be configured with a suitable static route I have no idea.
> 
> Alternatively, as I tried to explain previously, the solution would be 
> to disable the router function of the primary Mesh device, so that it 
> simply becomes a wireless access point on the Plusnet router's subnet. 
> The Mesh manual is not helpful in this respect; but I think it ought to 
> be possible.  The solution will be to ignore the manual and work from 
> first principles, connecting a computer by Ethernet cable to a LAN port 
> on the primary Mesh device, and ***NOT*** having that Mesh device 
> connected to anything else.  The computer should get an IP address, and 
> should show the Mesh device as the default gateway; this should allow 
> you to open a web browser at that address.  If that doesn't work then 
> the Mesh device is designed to be unhelpful.
> 
> Using a router configured as a modem to make the intenet connection does 
> not help, because its LAN ports are not on the Mesh subnet.

Good point there. So in all that, the best option is probably to bung a
switch into the spare Ethernet port on the master Mesh box, so everything
is on the 192.168.0.x subnet, and forget the rest of it.

Now, I’m not sure what will happen with that (just some wild thinking going
on here) The master Mesh box is in the location that needs to connect to
the most Ethernet devices, which is the one connected to the Plusnet
router.

Now, one end of the Ethernet cable connects to the PN router under
192.168.1.x, and the Mesh box gets a 192.168.1.x address there, the Mesh
box has two Ethernet ports, but what range should come out of the second
port (as a matter of convention, I used port 1 on both devices for the link
to the PN router).

Obviously I can just try it and see, but just curious.

-- 
Andy H

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145905

Andy Hewitt wrote:

[snip]
> 
> Now, one end of the Ethernet cable connects to the PN router under
> 192.168.1.x, and the Mesh box gets a 192.168.1.x address there, the Mesh
> box has two Ethernet ports, but what range should come out of the second
> port (as a matter of convention, I used port 1 on both devices

Which "both devices"?  Mesh and Plusnet, or Mesh 1 and Mesh 2?


> for the link
> to the PN router).

The WAN address of the primary Mesh box is obtained from the Plusnet 
router, which should be able to tell you what it has given out.

The DHCP server in the primary Mesh box defines what addresses are given 
out on its LAN.  The details of this are visible in the management of 
the Mesh - the manual here says:

""""""
Start  IP  Address - This field specifies the first address in the IP 
Address pool. 192.168.0.100 is the default start IP address.

End  IP  Address  -  This  field  specifies  the  last  address  in  the 
  IP  Address  pool. 192.168.0.199 is the default end IP address.
""""""

It may be worth a diligent read of the manual ...


-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145907

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> Andy Hewitt wrote:
> 
> [snip]
>> 
>> Now, one end of the Ethernet cable connects to the PN router under
>> 192.168.1.x, and the Mesh box gets a 192.168.1.x address there, the Mesh
>> box has two Ethernet ports, but what range should come out of the second
>> port (as a matter of convention, I used port 1 on both devices
> 
> Which "both devices"?  Mesh and Plusnet, or Mesh 1 and Mesh 2?

Port 1 of the PN box is connected to Port 1 of the Mesh box.

>> for the link
>> to the PN router).
> 
> The WAN address of the primary Mesh box is obtained from the Plusnet 
> router, which should be able to tell you what it has given out.
> 
> The DHCP server in the primary Mesh box defines what addresses are given 
> out on its LAN.  The details of this are visible in the management of 
> the Mesh - the manual here says:
> 
> """"""
> Start  IP  Address - This field specifies the first address in the IP 
> Address pool. 192.168.0.100 is the default start IP address.
> 
> End  IP  Address  -  This  field  specifies  the  last  address  in  the 
>  IP  Address  pool. 192.168.0.199 is the default end IP address.
> """"""
> 
> It may be worth a diligent read of the manual ...

Yeah, I’ve got that lot, I’m just curious as to what IP address range
should come out of Port 2 of the Mesh box, if Port 1 is being fed a
192.168.1.x number from the PN router to the Mesh box in port 1 (I suspect
the port numbers are irrelevant, as I said, I was just using a
configuration convention). I would expect it to be the Mesh IP range
(192.168.0.x), but with this bunch of kit, I’m expecting the unexpected
:-/.

Anyway, I’ve ordered a basic switch, so hopefully that should resolve all
the headache.

Cheers.

-- 
Andy H

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145909

Andy Hewitt wrote:

[snip]

> Yeah, I’ve got that lot, I’m just curious as to what IP address range
> should come out of Port 2 of the Mesh box, if Port 1 is being fed a
> 192.168.1.x number from the PN router to the Mesh box in port 1 (I suspect
> the port numbers are irrelevant, as I said, I was just using a
> configuration convention). I would expect it to be the Mesh IP range
> (192.168.0.x), but with this bunch of kit, I’m expecting the unexpected
> :-/.

The manual says the RJ45 sockets are "WAN/LAN auto-sensing ports".

So far as I can see the primary Mesh device can have only one WAN 
connection, so the other port must be the LAN.  Devices connected to the 
LAN (either by wire from this port, by WiFi, or by wire from a paired 
Mesh device will all get addresses from the primary Mesh's DHCP server.

The management pages in the primary Mesh device should show you what IP 
addresses it has issued.



-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | uk.comp.sys.mac

csiph-web