What is the recommendation when connecting multiple Pepwave SOHO devices to a modem?

I have recently configured 2 Pepwave Surf SOHO MK3 devices that are connected to a modem/router that has been bridged since the service is restricted to VDSL which isn’t a feature in the Pepwave Surf SOHO MK3 devices. The Pepwave devices establish a PPoE connection.

The reason there are 2 Pepwave Surf devices is because of the distance of the wireless devices.

The WAN ports of the Pepwave devices are connected to a network port in the wall which terminates at the LAN ports of the bridged modem/router.

As there are limitations with the ISP to support multiple PPoE connections, this is resulting in intermittent outages.

What is the recommended way to connect the multiple PPoE devices to the modem/router? The modem/router in question is a consumer grade Netcomm device. There is no intention or requirement to replace this.

I would think using https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00I9RQOR4/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_7?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1 for the two internet circuits would be better unless you need two separate LAN networks. Just extend wire of ISP to central location. It’s worth the money.

Just a brief sanity check: Does your ISP provide you with two distinct WAN IP addresses, each to be established using PPoE across the same physical connection (your modem in bridge mode is now an L2 device)?

1 Like

Thanks @sotonet. Unfortunately further investment isn’t really an option since it’s intended for a non-profit organization that constrained. I would welcome alternative suggestions.

Assuming that you mean when the SOHO devices establish a PPoE connection, that is correct in that they issue 2 distinct IP addresses. The modem has been configured with a pass-through connection.

This is a bit over my head and you have not said exactly what you are trying to do. That said:

In retrospect it sounds like you needed 1 Surf SOHO and a switch and an Access Point.

With the two Surf SOHO, perhaps connect the WAN port of SOHO2 into a LAN port of SOHO1 (which would be the only one connected to modem). Pretty sure this can allow all wired devices to communicate with each other, but I don’t know if wireless devices connected to one SOHO will be able to communicate with wireless devices connected to the other SOHO.

1 Like

Thanks @Michael234. Since the SOHO device is a router and not an integrated gateway that includes a modem, it is currently connected to a modem. In the environment I am currently in, I have 2 SOHO devices that have the WAN ports connected to a network port that terminates to LAN ports on the modem.

The SOHO devices are at moment configured to establish PPPoE connections however since there are limitations with the ISP to support multiple of these, it results in intermittent outages.

My question is seeking as to the recommendation when connection multiple routers/switches to a single modem.

For example, should each router/switch be configured with its own IP address ranges e.g. 192.168.50.10/24 and 192.168.51.10/24, etc?

How should the modem be setup so that each SOHO device is not required to establish its own PPPoE connection?

A modem is designed to connect to a single router. Any complications you want or need to add, are to the router. My suggestion was to have only one router connected to the modem since your ISP has a problem with two. You should not try to connect two routers to a modem. This is why you can’t find any info on how to do it.

On the LAN side, you have not been specific about what you need to do. Is it simple net access or do you need file/printer sharing too?

2 Likes

Please pardon the interruption. Could you explain WHY you want to use two SOHOs? What do you wish to accomplish by using two? Your topology is a bit curious. I understand there are financial constraints but I gotta ask …

1 Like

@Rick-DC - The reason there are 2 Pepwave Surf devices is because of the distance of the wireless devices.

I’m curious to understand as to the limitations of connecting multiple routers to a modem. In the current scenario due to the distance of the wireless devices, it is impossible to only have a single router since they would not be able to communicate via 802.11 and there are no physical ports or wiring.

On the LAN side, there is a requirement to share a printer between the 2 locations.

Hi. Somehow I suspected you were going to say that. I’ll posit that the “preferred solution,” at least in my view, would be to use a Balance-series router with multiple APs. Even a Balance 20 can support more APswith it’s built-in controller than you’ll ever need. That approach works quite well and the topology is greatly more simple than what you’re trying to do. The Balance controller is also quite “competent” and versatile. Do it that way and you won’t have to jump through hoops to get your devices talking with one another – untagged or VLAN.

If you really, really want to use two SOHOs I’m going to step aside as we’ve had no experience connecting multiple routers to a single modem with PPPoE. :dizzy_face:

1 Like

To clarify, I am assuming the SOHOs are currently located where they need to be to provide wifi coverage (positions A and B) and the netcom vdsl modem/router is at a different location © and you only have two drops of ethernet cable (one each from A & B back to C). Is that right? (if not please draw / explain).

And you say:

  1. You have no budget for an additional access point
  2. You need all wifi devices to be able to print to a shared printer (which location is the printer at? Wired or Wireless?)
  3. You have multiple WAN IPs you want to use. How do you want to use the WAN IPs?
  4. What exact model is the ISP modem/router?
  5. The ethernet links are they recent (ie cat6+ or old?).
  6. How far away is location A and B from each other and location C?
1 Like
  1. That is correct.
  2. Yes. It is wired and connected to SOHO device 1 (A)
  3. The WAN IPs are less of a concern. The ISP had originally issued a static IP address however since there are multiple devices establishing a PPPoE connection, they have for the moment limited it to dynamic addresses. The intent had been to limit the static IP address to the modem.
  4. https://support.netcommwireless.com/product/nf4v
  5. Unknown. It’s likely to be the latter since it’s an old building.
  6. The distance between SOHO 1 and SOHO 2 is approximately 40 meters or more.
  7. SOHO 1 is roughly 1 meter from the modem and SOHO 2 is approximately 40 meters or more.

Yes, that is correct.

If its that close then I would do a primary secondary setup.
netcom > SOHO A(1) > SOHO B(2)

Both SOHOS would have unique LAN Addresses (like 192.168.1.1/24 on SOHO A and 192.168.**2.**1/24 on SOHO B)

Put SOHO B WAN into IP Forwarding mode. Add a static route to SOHO A of 192.168.2.0 -> 192.168.1.x (where .x is the statically assigned WAN IP of SOHO B connected to the LAN of SOHO A)

1 Like

Thanks Marin. What do you mean by statically assigned WAN IP?

For devices on the LAN of SOHO A to route to the LAN of SOHO B, they need to know which gateway to use - in this case the WAN of SOHO B. That’s why we add a static route to SOHO A with the WAN IP of SOHO B as the gateway.

That route would become invalid if SOHO B’s WAN IP were to change. So you need to either set it manually to something or set a DHCP reservation so that it doesn’t change and becomes static.

1 Like