Can't access device by IP address on RT-AX88U router

[crz383]

Hi.

I just joined this forum because I need some advice about my RT-AX88U router. I purchased it a little while ago to replace my older DLink DIR-632 router. On the DIR-632, I had no trouble accessing my HP 4050TN network printer at static IP address 192.168.1.2 and a PDU at 192.168.1.99, both of which are hardwired via ethernet. However, I can't access either of these devices (using their IP addresses) on the AX88U router.

I tried chatting (for a large part of the morning) with Asus support; but they weren't any help.

Just FYI, the DHCP address range on the AX88U router is 192.168.50.2 to 192.168.50.254, whereas on the DIR-632 it was 192.168.1.100 to 192.168.1.199, although I can't see how this would be relevant, since the static IP addresses are outside the DHCP address ranges.

Is there some setting on the router that solves this problem. The router firmware version is: 3.0.0.4.388-22525-gd35b8fe.

Thanks

 

[bbunge]

Yes, what you explain is understood. Your static IP assignment devices are outside the broadcast domain of your router. An easy fix is to change the router IP address to 192.168.1.1 in LAN - LAN IP.

Then you need to change the LAN - DHCP Server - IP Pool Starting Address to 192.168.1.100

Keep in mind that when you reset the router for any reason the router IP address will revert to 192.168.50.1. Long term I would recommend setting your two devices to DHCP, resetting the router IP address to default of 192.168.50.1 then returing your clients to a static IP address in the 192.168.50.0/24 pool.

 

[ColinTaylor]

Just FYI, the DHCP address range on the AX88U router is 192.168.50.2 to 192.168.50.254, whereas on the DIR-632 it was 192.168.1.100 to 192.168.1.199, although I can't see how this would be relevant, since the static IP addresses are outside the DHCP address ranges.

This is the problem. Those two devices are not in your router's local subnet so it's trying to get to them via the internet.

Either give those two devices IP addresses in the 192.168.50.x subnet, or change your router's subnet to what it was before - 192.168.1.x.

 

[drinkingbird]

Hi.

I just joined this forum because I need some advice about my RT-AX88U router. I purchased it a little while ago to replace my older DLink DIR-632 router. On the DIR-632, I had no trouble accessing my HP 4050TN network printer at static IP address 192.168.1.2 and a PDU at 192.168.1.99, both of which are hardwired via ethernet. However, I can't access either of these devices (using their IP addresses) on the AX88U router.

I tried chatting (for a large part of the morning) with Asus support; but they weren't any help.

Just FYI, the DHCP address range on the AX88U router is 192.168.50.2 to 192.168.50.254, whereas on the DIR-632 it was 192.168.1.100 to 192.168.1.199, although I can't see how this would be relevant, since the static IP addresses are outside the DHCP address ranges.

Is there some setting on the router that solves this problem. The router firmware version is: 3.0.0.4.388-22525-gd35b8fe.

Thanks

As others have mentioned, you have mismatched subnets and need to fix that.

I would also recommend changing both devices from static to "dhcp reservation". They will get their IP and other info from DHCP but it will always be the same IP you assign. Either that or change your DHCP range so it does not overlap with the static IPs, i.e. make it 100 to 254.

 

[crz383]

Thanks for the replies. I thought of changing the LAN IP address of the router to that of my old DLink DIR-632 router, ie, 192.168.1.1; but I wasn't sure that would solve the problem. What I didn't realize was that this IP address defined the range of IP addresses of all local devices. The easiest solution was to change the AX88U's IP address to 192.168.1.1, with a corresponding change to the DHCP address range. Everything seems to be working now.

 

[drinkingbird]

Thanks for the replies. I thought of changing the LAN IP address of the router to that of my old DLink DIR-632 router, ie, 192.168.1.1; but I wasn't sure that would solve the problem. What I didn't realize was that this IP address defined the range of IP addresses of all local devices. The easiest solution was to change the AX88U's IP address to 192.168.1.1, with a corresponding change to the DHCP address range. Everything seems to be working now.

Yes, in this case 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 means 192.168.1.1 through 192.168.1.254 (with 0 and 255 used for network stuff, not hosts). Anything outside of that range is sent to the WAN port. So before when trying to reach 192.168.1.2 from 192.168.50.x it was being sent to the internet and dropped since that is a private range not known on the internet.

 

[bbunge]

Yes, in this case 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 means 192.168.1.1 through 192.168.1.254 (with 0 and 255 used for network stuff, not hosts). Anything outside of that range is sent to the WAN port. So before when trying to reach 192.168.1.2 from 192.168.50.x it was being sent to the internet and dropped since that is a private range not known on the internet.

The OP has his fix and is happy. Your comments are superfluous and adds confusion to a simple solution.

 

[L&LD]

More information is never superfluous.

 

[drinkingbird]

The OP has his fix and is happy. Your comments are superfluous and adds confusion to a simple solution.

God forbid someone gain some understanding of why it didn't work, for future reference, so they don't just end up having a similar issue down the road. I'm sorry if it confused you, but I thought it was a pretty straightforward explanation. Your mention of a broadcast domain was superfluous and confusing to a novice user.

If you seize the engine in your car, the mechanic should very well tell you that it was because it ran out of oil. Knowledge is a good thing.

 

[OzarkEdge]

Your mention of a broadcast domain was superfluous and confusing to a novice user.

Knowledge is a good thing.

So, the more information the better or not? I think more is better for all of us, including your post objected to.

OE

 

[Crimliar]

I'm loath to post another explanation unless the OP feels it's necessary, but I do sometimes think in situations like this it's a good idea to give a bit more of an explainer regards what the "network speak" actually means.

 

[drinkingbird]

So, the more information the better or not? I think more is better for all of us, including your post objected to.

OE

Had it included an explanation of what a broadcast domain is, it would have been useful. Simply mentioning it as though someone who isn't even familiar with subnetting knows what it means is confusing.

My point was, I was accused of confusing the OP with an explanation, just pointing out that using network jargon with no explanation was, in fact, confusing.

To go back to the seized engine analogy, its the equivalent of the mechanic saying the lack of oil caused a lot of friction which overheated the engine, vs. "you spun your crank bearings and froze your pistons".