Trying to set up T1600G with VLANs and DHCP Pools but not getting beyond the switch

This thread has been locked for further replies. You can start a new thread to share your ideas or ask questions.

Trying to set up T1600G with VLANs and DHCP Pools but not getting beyond the switch

This thread has been locked for further replies. You can start a new thread to share your ideas or ask questions.
Trying to set up T1600G with VLANs and DHCP Pools but not getting beyond the switch
Trying to set up T1600G with VLANs and DHCP Pools but not getting beyond the switch
2022-01-12 14:41:31
Hardware Version: V3
Firmware Version: 3.0.6 Build 20200805 Rel.55968

Hi all,

 

Looking to see if someone can point out where I have incorrectly set things up.  I am trying to segment my network into some VLANs and use the T1600G's DHCP server to provide IPs to devices in those VLANs.  Mostly, I'm trying to follow the FAQ from here (https://www.tp-link.com/en/support/faq/887/), but using the features of the T1600G without having a TL-ER6120 or similar router.  None of the devices in my VLANs can reach anything outside their respective VLAN.  They properly acquire a DHCP address (ie, a device in port 5 gets a 10.10.10.x IP), but they cannot route out to either the internet or to the RT-AC68P from the picture.

 

Currently, Port 15 on the T1600G is connected to the RT-AC68P WiFi/Router.

 

Configuration (from the Web GUI for items I thought would be relevant) is as follows:

 

L3 Features
===========

Interface:

Interface ID IP Address Mode IP Address Subnet Mask Name
VLAN30 Static 10.10.30.1 255.255.255.0 KD_Switch
VLAN20 Static 10.10.20.1 255.255.255.0 HV_Switch
VLAN10 Static 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.0 HD_Switch
VLAN1 DHCP 192.168.2.164 255.255.255.0 WAN_Switch
VLAN40 Static 10.10.40.1 255.255.255.0 BB_Switch

 

Static Routing (IPv4):

Index Destination Subnet Mask Next Hop Distance Metric Interface Name
1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.1 1 0 VLAN1
2 192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.2.1 1 0 VLAN1

 

DHCP Service/DHCP Server (Pool Settings):

Index Pool Name Network Address Subnet Mask Default Gateway
1 HD 10.10.10.0 255.255.255.0 10.10.10.1
2 HV 10.10.20.0 255.255.255.0 10.10.20.1
3 KD 10.10.30.0 255.255.255.0 10.10.30.1
4 BB 10.10.40.0 255.255.255.0 10.10.40.1

 

Routing Table/IPv4 Routing Table:

Protocol Destination Network Next Hop Distance Metric Interface Name
Static 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.2.1 1 0 VLAN1
Connected 10.10.10.0/24 10.10.10.1 0 1 VLAN10
Connected 10.10.20.0/24 10.10.20.1 0 1 VLAN20
Connected 10.10.30.0/24 10.10.30.1 0 1 VLAN30
Connected 10.10.40.0/24 10.10.40.1 0 1 VLAN40
Connected 192.168.2.0/24 192.168.2.164 0 1 VLAN1

 


L2 Features
==========

 

VLAN/802.1Q VLAN (VLAN Config):

VLAN ID VLAN Name Members
1 Sys 1/0/15
10 HD 1/0/5-9,1/0/15
20 HV 1/0/15-22
30 KD 1/0/1-2,1/0/15
40 BB 1/0/3-4,1/0/15

 

VLAN/802.1Q VLAN (Port Config):

Port PVID Ingress Checking Acceptable Frame Types
1/0/1 30 Enabled Admit All
1/0/2 30    
... ... ... ...
1/0/5 10 Enabled Admit All
1/0/6 10 Enabled Admit All
... ... ... ...
1/0/15 1 Enabled Admit All
1/0/16 20 Enabled Admit All
1/0/17 20 Enabled Admit All
.... ... ... ...

 

Picture of Network Layout:

 

 

 

Am I missing specific static routes that are preventing me from reaching anything beyond the switch?

None of my switch ports are tagged, and I included 1/0/15 in all the VLANs.  Is that correct?

Anything else that I overlooked and misconfigured trying to set this up?

  0      
  0      
#1
Options
1 Reply
Re:Trying to set up T1600G with VLANs and DHCP Pools but not getting beyond the switch
2022-01-12 21:08:35

@wildcats40 

Multi-nets in FAQ887 requires two important features

1. A router supports Multi-Nets NAT 

2. A switch supports DHCP server(L3 features)         You have the switch. But you missed 1.

I don't see this AC68P has any specs of multi-nets NAT functionality. There is a reason why TPLINK suggests you use their SMB routers. 

ScReW yOu gUyS. I aM GOinG hoMe. —————————————————————— For heaven's sake, can you write and describe your issue based on plain fact, common logic and a methodologic approach? Appreciate it.
  0  
  0  
#2
Options