WAG310G and Asus N10 with Tomato

Forums › LAN (ethernet/Wifi/routers/Bluetooth) › WAG310G and Asus N10 with Tomato - Half Bridge Setup

Cadriel

134 posts

Master Geek

#93574 24-Nov-2011 10:15

Hi all,

I have a Cisco WAG310g on the xNet network, along with voice services. Things are running good - but I've always had odd port forwarding issues with the WAG - plus I don't like the limits they impose.

Anyway - I have an Asus N10 with Tomtao installed on it, and I'd like to know if it's possible to have this setup as my routing device for my network instead of the WAG.

I'd like to run the WAG as a pure modem and voice unit, and have tomato look after my NAT DHCP and DNS.

Current setup has dnsmasq and dhcp on a 24/7 server I run in the house. I'd move both of these to tomato. (I have some domain setup that requires something a little more advanced that the WAG couldn't do for me)

Is this relatively easy to do? I understand the WAG runs with some default QOS rules for xNet? Are there concerns there?

Thanks for any help! :)

Ragnor

8223 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#549522 24-Nov-2011 17:55

The WAG310G doesn't support PPPoA half bridge (aka ip extension) and if it did it's likely the voice port wouldn't function in that mode.

I think any setup involving the WAG310 + Asus N10 would involve two routers and double NAT.

Personally I would look at getting a Draytek Vigor 120 which supports PPPoA to PPPoE relay/bridging, sell the WAG310G and then buy a voip ata.

TomatoUSB has really good QoS, particularly the Toastman builds/mods. QoS for voip is just a matter of configuration via he web ui. Toastman has written many posts and articles about QoS with Tomato on the TomatoUSB and the LinksysInfo forums.

RunningMan

8961 posts

Uber Geek

#549534 24-Nov-2011 18:10

The WAG310G supports using one of the ethernet ports as a WAN port, you could set it up inside your network to just do the voice duties.

Cadriel

134 posts

Master Geek

#549537 24-Nov-2011 18:19

Ragnor: The WAG310G doesn't support PPPoA half bridge (aka ip extension) and if it did it's likely the voice port wouldn't function in that mode.

I think any setup involving the WAG310 + Asus N10 would involve two routers and double NAT.

Personally I would look at getting a Draytek Vigor 120 which supports PPPoA to PPPoE relay/bridging, sell the WAG310G and then buy a voip ata.

TomatoUSB has really good QoS, particularly the Toastman builds/mods. QoS for voip is just a matter of configuration via he web ui. Toastman has written many posts and articles about QoS with Tomato on the TomatoUSB and the LinksysInfo forums.

Hi Ragnor;

This sounds more like me.

However - this would mean 3 devices in my cabinet instead of the proposed 2 right? I'd end up with the Vigor 120 for the modem - an ATA for voice, and the N10 for routing?

Or did you propose putting tomato on the Vigor?

Ragnor

8223 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#549555 24-Nov-2011 18:48

Yes 3 devices I'm afraid.

From RunningMan's post sounds like you can use the WAG310 basically as an ATA so you'd only need to buy the one new device.

Most third party firmware eg: Tomato, DD-WRT, OpenWRT etc only runs devices without DSL modems inbuilt.

Cadriel

134 posts

Master Geek

#549564 24-Nov-2011 18:59

3 devices I can live with.

Having the ability for a full bridge with the Draytek sounds worth it. At least this also gives me further flexibility if / when I move from xnet.

Thanks for your time Ragnor. :)

Tom_Rush

208 posts

Master Geek

#549714 25-Nov-2011 00:50

Ragnor sounds well informed which suggests he writes from experience.

I have a TG585v8 (no ATA) and a Linksys E4200 running Toastman firmware using a double NAT connection.

My E4200 is running OpenVPN, PPTP(GRE), dnsmasq and DHCP.

I've got 4 ports forwarded.

All works well. The Tomato dnsmasq is a few versions behind the times and lacks a few features but is good enough as a local caching DNS.

In my config I get away with double NAT and have no problems with it.

There have been so many postings where double NAT has gone pear shape and ended in tears, however.. if one is not gaming or using Apple transport protocols, one may be OK with double NAT.

Depending on your approach, you may like to try double NAT and see how you go first.

If it works, it gives you a chance to reflect on what your next move will be.

I've used a WAG120N as an ADSL modem NAT'd to my E4200 and it works OK.

As Ragnor pointed out the Linksys ADSL modem/'routers' are not in the ballpark as handoff devices when is comes to bridging/routing. Not what they were designed for.

Even the new X series ADSL modems are just lip stick upgrades.

http://ui.linksys.com/files/

Cadriel

134 posts

Master Geek

#549762 25-Nov-2011 09:02

My network is reasonably complex in that it has 2 macs (soon to be 3) a PC and two linux machines on it, not to mention the printer and other devices connection wirelessly (phones, iPads etc).

So I need to support all of these - and well.

One of my aims here was to remove the service dependency off my linux server - i.e., I dont want dnsmasq and dhcp services dependant on that box - it's only there for NAS requirements.

In any case - I know tomato will provide what I need as far as dnsmasq goes.

Also - it's worth mentioning that I'm using TomatoUSB for its Asus support.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Ragnor

8223 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#550153 26-Nov-2011 04:56

Double NAT is not the end of the world but some applications don't traverse double NAT well and for many applications that act as a receiving server/host you often end up having to manually port forward from the modem/router to the 2nd router then from the 2nd router to the machine.

Consider, how an application initiates communication from user A who is behind NAT with user B who is also behind NAT. If the user A tries to communicate with B then B's router will simply ignore the data as there is no record in the NAT table of an outgoing connection.

Smarter applications work around this by using an intermediary server to punch a hole in the NAT.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1539339/how-does-skype-work-without-port-forwarding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDP_hole_punching

This however, means every p2p app actually has to have some form of central server to work.

Gaming consoles and newer PC games tend to use p2p like approach for multi player rather than dedicated servers, in quite a few cases p2p like approach with no central/intermediary server (or an overloaded one).

If you are a gamer the list of ports to open depending on what games you play is quite sizeable... and then say you have multiple gamers behind the one connection with games each dynamically using a port within a range. It gets annoying.

UPNP and NAT-PMP pretty neat protocols that let applications tell a router hey open these ports temporarily for me to listen on. Unfortunately in double NAT your app will open ports in the second router but the message doesn't get passed to the first router.

Anyway long story short... double NAT will work fine for basic web usage where you are a client contacting a server and getting data back, work fine for smarter p2p apps that use an intermediary central server but is a pain in the but for less centralised p2p stuff.

Cadriel

134 posts

Master Geek

#550250 26-Nov-2011 11:13

Plus - it's a complicated looking setup in theory and one that I want to avoid. Also have gamers in the house. :)

I'm all for simplicity with control.