>>19105
Sorry, I'm not so sure on how you would eminate that double NAT issue, that is a particular head-scratcher.

But I really think you should contemplate putting an IDS before your D-link hub (not a router)

>>19112
Okay, that is more help than I've gotten, but... Functionally it's a router. If it were a hub, I'd have to deal with other issues.

I figure I might have to put a switch in, but I don't know enough about switches to decide on a good one to put in that doesn't kill my budget.

>>19118
Take this to /g/ if you haven't already, you might want to post in the Stupid Questions Thread - don't be offended this isn't a stupid question but someone may be able to help you with this

>>19121
I actually came here from there after reading the sticky, but I'll do that.

I also just noticed I sort of screwed up and posted this only writing half of that last sentence.

>>19118
>Okay, that is more help than I've gotten, but... Functionally it's a router. If it were a hub, I'd have to deal with other issues.
"Other issues". That's helpful, thanks.

Why the fuck is it a router? Does your landlord not trust you to be on his network? If so, why are you trying to pierce a firewall he put in to keep you out?

If not, why are you not just plugging everything into the LAN ports on the router and ignoring the whole router side of it entirely?
>I figure I might have to put a switch in, but I don't know enough about switches to decide on a good one to put in that doesn't kill my budget.
You're switching an Internet connection, not a SAS storage drawer. It is literally impossible for you to buy a switch that's inadequate for your requirements. Stick "gigabit switch" into eBay, and buy the cheapest one.

>>19127
It's a router because the drunk asshole who throws fits constantly bought it, and won't use anything else because his name is on it. The ISP owns the gateway and that's my charge.
>make it a hub that'd totally not shit all over itself from just redirecting packets out of every single port
Well considering angry drunk shithead I don't want to deal with bought it because the gateway was shitting over itself already, that doesn't sound like a good idea. The idea is to leave the piece of shit he bought alone as much as I can because I don't need more broken windows or impacted light switched because of a shitty tantrum.
>buy the cheapest switch
And then have it die in a week? I'm still thinking of getting something that doesn't break immediately and shit hardware tends to do that.

>>19134
>>make it a hub that'd totally not shit all over itself from just redirecting packets out of every single port

>Asks for solution
>Given solution
>Thinks he knows better than solution
If you knew anything about networking, you'd have solved your own problem by now.

Get down off mount stupid.

Can someone explain the scenario you have, are you sharing an apartment with someone and using someone else's access point. Who is this wanker? Is he some sort of cyber geek?

Why do you care so much about this, is it actually effecting your ability to browse the internet?

It's like you guys are having a shitfit at each other being able to snoop each other's packets which in itself is a load of bullshit

>>19140
I need to try and be able to host games and shit while tiptoeing around a drunk asshole who goes and breaks things if he so much as loses his connection. He connects at the D-link router.

This is only complicated because of his stupid temper.

I avoided the double NAT configuration by using my second (and third, don't ask) routers as switches by:
- disabling the dhcp servers in them
- setting the LAN address to a fixed value outside the range assigned by the master server
- connecting the router to the main one using the LAN port and NOT the uplink port.

The dlinks can act as normal routers too, but you have to manually maintain the routing tables, and that gets painful tithe these cheap-ass routers. And sometimes it flat doesn't work.

>>19199
But clearly that can't work, because they'd "totally shit all over itself from just redirecting packets out of every single port"

>>19199
What you need to do is implement an IPv6 network, which shouldn't be a problem nowadays.

This will allow you to implement a Flat IP network and will prevent the problem you are having due to the condensed headers in IPv6

>>19232
There's no reason I couldn't do everything OP is trying to do without changing the topology and without straying from IPV4.

I was going to say "there's no reason OP can't do everything he's trying to do", but well...

I don't get why you are having a double NAT issue

can't you just use the same subnet for your whole inside network? no reason to do NAT in ur own home network

>>19293
Most home routers won't let you run the same subnet on both interfaces.

And even if they do, they're routing so they won't pass multicast/broadcast packets.

But yes, OP's problem can be summed up as
>"I want to eat this apple, but it's stuffed up my ass and I can't reach"
>Have you tried taking it out your ass?
>NO, I want to eat it when it's in my ass.

>>19312
Haha I laughed

>>19312
but he can still disable NAT in that dlink router, why would it be doing NAT in the first place?

whose is the NAS box?

>>19208
>>>19199 (You)
>But clearly that can't work, because they'd "totally shit all over itself from just redirecting packets out of every single port"

It does work. Switches aren't usually THAT stupid. They have a MAC address table to determine where to send stuff. Been working well for 3 years with a pair of DIR-601s.