[ferretuk]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Your plan is sound. The main thing is to give the SH the minimum amount to do by turning off wireless & firewall. This leaves it mereley to route out to its four switch ports.

You'll want to allow for double natting if your devices are sensistive to this; you'll need to set each router into bridge mode with own discrete DHCP range for serving out to their attached devices. Double natting takes care of addressing from the SH to the appropriate router.

There is no reason I can think of why the solution you propose shouldn't work with stability.

If all the routers (other than the SH) are in bridge mode this will work (assuming the DHCP servers only serve to their LAN side connections when in bridge mode?) but with the following caveats:

1. DDNS updating may well not work as the router given the task of running the update will have a private IP address on its WAN port, not the VM public address.
2. Machine IP addresses will change as you move between segments.

Far easier, IMHO, to simply use the downstream routers as access points...

EDIT

Looking at a Cisco document, their implementation of 'bridge' mode completely disables all router functionality, including DHCP, and turns the unit into an access point anyway...

---------- Post added at 12:57 ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 ----------

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

It will, it's just not ideal.

Accessing the printers and the NAS that are connected to the SH from the LAN side of the downstream router will be problematic and speed limited! 'Discovery' software won't work for printer installation (if required). Static IPs will need to be configured on the SH connected devices (not necessarily a bad thing of course!) and this isn't mentioned by GM...

"Not ideal" is a bit of understatement! It's a dog's dinner

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

NAT, yes. Routing, no. Multiple routers is fine, that's how the whole internet works.

The routers under discussion are, by default, NAT devices.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Don't need to be anywhere near the same subnet.

Makes management of them a bit more awkward if they're not? No reason not to be on the same subnet so why make life difficult?

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Or you could run a DDNS update client on a second router, like was already suggested

The WAN address of the second router will be the private address allocated by the SH so that's likely to be the address used for DDNS update. PC clients are 'NAT aware' and will identify the public address when behind a NAT router but do router clients work in the same way? I haven't tested this (have you?) but it would seem unlikely...