In reply to a post by Sandgrounder:

You can not have two independent networks if you connect them LAN to LAN.

Why not?

Your uncle is on cable. The OP is on ADSL.

So?

This is true, it will be on another network. However the Linksys router will know the shop network, and will not be designed to protect this shop network from residents on it's network. So if a suitably nosy/malicious person with the requisite knowledge were to join the linksys network they would have access to the shop network.

Now I assume (having done no actual research at this stage) that it would be possible to configure the linksys to block this access, but I doubt it will be straightforward.

The op would be better off getting either a router that allows him to do what he wants, or properly designing a network consisting of modem, router, firewall and access points.

Based upon quite unfounded assumptions about the size of the network the op wants I would advise the single router/firewall route.

In reply to a post by pmb00cs:

This is true, it will be on another network. However the Linksys router will know the shop network, and will not be designed to protect this shop network from residents on it's network.

I suggest this is the whole point of the Guest Access setting on the Linksys router.

I very much doubt it.

I would suggest the guest access setting is a setting that makes the "guest" client an untrusted network client, and as such prevented from accessing other clients on the protected network. As far as the linksys router is concerned everything it connects, and is within it's LAN segment is protected. Everything outside this is unprotected. This means the shop network, which lies closer to the internet than the linksys network, will therefore be considered untrusted by the firewall on the linksys, and will get no protection by default.

Now as a router designed for the power user or tech enthusiast (I've now done a little more research, but not much) I suspect that this router has the capacity to protect this external network as well, with rather good granularity. However the default is very unlikely to be to protect the external (shop) network out of the box, as it would expect this external network to be the internet (or close to it). It is not a PIX Cisco firewall that by default blocks everything. It is a consumer/prosumer/SOHO router. And this means it will have a "useful" default set up.

In reply to a post by pmb00cs:

I very much doubt it.

I would suggest the guest access setting is a setting that makes the "guest" client an untrusted network client, and as such prevented from accessing other clients on the protected network. As far as the linksys router is concerned everything it connects, and is within it's LAN segment is protected. Everything outside this is unprotected. This means the shop network, which lies closer to the internet than the linksys network, will therefore be considered untrusted by the firewall on the linksys, and will get no protection by default.

Now as a router designed for the power user or tech enthusiast (I've now done a little more research, but not much) I suspect that this router has the capacity to protect this external network as well, with rather good granularity. However the default is very unlikely to be to protect the external (shop) network out of the box, as it would expect this external network to be the internet (or close to it). It is not a PIX Cisco firewall that by default blocks everything. It is a consumer/prosumer/SOHO router. And this means it will have a "useful" default set up.

... made by Cisco.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

... made by Cisco.

I've used Linksys routers.

If you want Cisco capabilities you buy a Cisco, not a Linksys.

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

... made by Cisco.

I've used Linksys routers.

If you want Cisco capabilities you buy a Cisco, not a Linksys.

A Linksys is a Cisco.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

A Linksys is a Cisco.

It's got a Cisco logo on it, that's all.

Ha! Like that means anything these days.

Linksys is a Cisco owned brand, but the kit you get is not full on hardcore CISCO kit. It's not even in the same league.

Linksys by CIsco E3000 High-Performance Wireless-N Dual Band Router (the top of the E seires range) £99.99 on DABS

Cisco SA 520 Security Appliance (the cheapest Cisco Firewall available on DABS) £294.24

Now the Cisco SA 520 will absolutely do whatever you want it to in terms of firewall capabilities. But it will not be usable out of the box (unless implicit "Deny All" is useful to you). But it does not have Wireless N let alone dual band, in fact it doesn't have wireless at all. Why would cisco shoot themselves in the foot by offering an all singing all dancing router with dual band wireless N for just over 1/3 of the price of it's lowest price firewall?

The e-series will not be as good a firewall, it will not be as configurable, it will not have the same data throughput. Cisco are good at what they do, but they are greedier than microsoft. They get away with it though because the people doing the buying aren't after cheap they are after good.

Would the FON router work?