networking an hp 5850 on a subnet

I just installed an HP 5850 networked deskject printer on a home network and am having difficulties getting it to print from computers on a different router.

My home network has two routers - the computers that are on the same routher as the printer can print to the printer. Computers on the other router cannot print to this printer. The HP documentation says that a subnet is "problematic" - I'm not sure if this means it won't work.

PCs are running XP Pro and Win2K.

Any thoughts on what it might take to get this to work?

 

You can use this tool to check whether computers will connect to the printer. Put the printer's IP address and subnet mask in the computer 1 area and then enter the addresses of the computers in turn in the Computer 2 boxes and see what results you get. I expect that you effectively have two subnets (one connected to each of the routers).

Why do you have two routers? If both connect to the internet and are on the same physical network, you could well just be adding complication by having two routers.

If on the other hand you are connecting to two different remote networks, the best option may be to set up a static route between the two networks.

Can you give us a little more information on what the two routers connect to and why you need two. Then we should be able to give some more specific help.

 

My computers are located in different areas of the house and I have about 5 that go on the network. That plus the printer require a total of 6 ports. My routers have only 4 ports each. Plus it is easier to run a single cable to another router (or could use a hub) to connect the other PCs and printer to the network.

Would a hub be any easier than a router for the second cluster of PCs?

 

Yes. A switch or hub would be easier for the other group of computers. However, as you already have two routers I would suggest you use one of them as a switch. To do this, simply turn off the DHCP (automatic IP addressing) on one of the routers. Then go round to all the computers connected to that router and run these commands at the command prompt:

IPCONFIG /RELEASE
IPCONFIG /RENEW

That will force them to get their IP address from the other router (if they are physically connected - you may need to use a crossover cable to connect the two routers together if they are not already connected).

I am assuming the routers have different IP address and subnet, as otherwise your original problem would not have occurred.

 

I also have a hub - would that be easier to use than my second router?

Also, is a crossover cable necessary going from the router to another router or from the router to hub?

I would envision connecting the router to the other router or hub by coming out of one of the ports and going into the uplink. Should this cable be a crossover cable?

 

The hub is old technology and will slow the network down some when compared to a switch (like the one built into the routers you have). Since print jobs are fairly large, I'd suggest you simply turn one router/switch into a pure switch as ReggieB suggested.

General rule of thumb for cabling is that connecting like devices (two PCs, two switches, etc.) requires a crossover cable while connecting unlike devices (PC to switch, printer to switch, etc.) requires straight-through cables.

Some routers & switches have a port that can be toggled from regular to crossover so that you could use normal cables but without knowing what devices you have, no way to say. The manuals should tell you though.

 

Depending on what brand of router I have found that a lot of them cant have NAT turned off.
Your best bet is to purchase a switch and sell one of the routers to a friend.

 

I disagree. The NAT is irrelevant. The router will only work as a router if packets are sent to it to route. Packets for routing will only be sent to a router if:

1. The router is set as a default gateway on one of the computers in the network. If DHCP is running from the one router only, the gateway will be set to that router only. This will effectively switch off the routing function on the router which is not running DHCP, unless someone manually enters a gateway address pointing at it.
2. A dynamic routing protocol such as RIP or OSPF, is running on both routers. Most ADSL routers have this switched off by default as it is not needed (and may introduce problems) on a small network.
3. A static route is setup to use the router

If no packets to route are sent to a router with an inbuilt switch, it will act as a switch only. NAT is a routing procedure/protocol. It will only effect the routing functions of the device.

However, I also disagree with Newt - Oh dear, I am in argumentitive mood today: sorry chaps - On a small network I would be very surprised if you would notice any performance difference between a 100Mb/s switch and a 100Mb/s hub. When I suggested utilising the router as a switch, I was trying to save rdharris having to purchase another infrastructure device. If they already have a hub, I'd recommend using that in place of one of the routers.

There are other advantages to having a switch which would lead me to recommend buying one rather than a hub, but as you already have a hub use that - it will work fine.

 

On a small network I would be very surprised if you would notice any performance difference between a 100Mb/s switch and a 100Mb/s hub.

ReggieB - I agree but given that 100Mbps hubs were high end devices for the most part (so expensive) my guess would be that he has a 10Mbps half-duplex hub

I've been posting about the major speed difference but thought I had maybe remembered things from the 'old days' as being worse than they were. I have an old 10port hub that hasn't gone into the trash for some reason so just for a reality check, I plugged it into my switch and my 2 PCs at home (each with a slave printer shared on the network) into the hub then played around for a while. It is even worse than I remembered.

 

You're right Newt, a 10Mb/s hub will be slow. It depends what is being done over then network. Even a 10Mb/s hub is faster that an internet connection, so if it is just to share internet, I'd still contest that the speed difference won't be noticiable. Where it will really come to the fore is in file transfers - including sending documents to shared printers - there the low speed will be an issue. But then on a home system, how often do you transfer files!

I guess were I to qualify my comments I would say to rdharris:

1. A hub will be easy to set up.
2. It may well be slower than a switch, but try it first. You may well find it is fast enough for your requirements.
3. If you install the hub, everything works OK, but you find the performance is not as good as you'd like, go out and buy a switch (or use the spare router as a switch).

I guess what I am reacting to is a knee jerk reaction to hubs that I often see. Switches are better than hubs, but that doesn't mean that hubs are bad. If you have a hub try it first. There are a lot of companies out there who are managing quite happily on a hub network.

And lastly there is one area where a hub is far better than a cheap switch: fault diagnosis. Network faults disappear into cheap switches making the faults difficult to track down.

 

Thanks for your continued input on this. I am using a 10MBps hub - too bad for me. I like the idea of trying this out to see if it will work. If it does I can always purchase a new 100MBps hub. If it doesn't work then I guess I can just buy another printer. At some point I will give up and spend another $100 on a printer.

Buying a new printer would be an empty victory at best...I really want to make this work with a router or a hub. Anything short of this would be a defeat.

Thanks again for your comments.

rdharris