ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: OT Network question....  (Read 11407 times)

Tommy Peel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1468
  • Longview, Texas
OT Network question....
« on: June 07, 2014, 03:49:30 PM »

I think I'm on the right track with this but I want to run it by some people smarter than me.

A friend's dad has a small business with a few computers in an office separate from their house and a hanger a few hundred feet from the office. The house and hanger have ethernet cables connecting them to the office(where the DSL internet connection comes in). Currently the DSL modem's 4-port router feeds the house's wireless router(network can be picked up in the office), an 8-port switch in the office, and another wireless router in the hanger. They were having issues sharing files between computers on the separate networks(no surprise after I looked at because of how they were configured).

Anyway I've recommended installing 3 Ubiquity Wireless APs; one each for the office, hangar, and house. These would be connected to the nice Linksys wireless router(wireless network disabled) that would be moved from the house to the office. This would also allow the office computers to operate at Gigabit speed as the cable modem router used right now only does 10/100. I would then configure the Ubiquity APs to have the same SSIDs and passwords using the Ubiquity software so there would be seamless transition between networks.

Any flaws in my logic? Things to look out for? Better ideas?


Thanks,
Tommy
Logged

Jonathan Johnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3209
  • Southwest Washington (state, not DC)
Re: OT Network question....
« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2014, 04:16:21 PM »

Seems reasonable to me. The Ubiquiti gear works well. Using the same SSIDs and passwords simplifies roaming. I believe that you will need to designate one computer as a "controller" for the Ubiquiti access points; it will have software running that will manage the connections and ensure smooth roaming between APs. This PC will need to be powered on at all times.

A question: is the Linksys wireless router separate from the DSL modem, or is it the same? If they are separate devices, you should to try to configure them in such a way as to avoid "double NAT". Double NAT will usually be OK for simple web browsing, but other applications, protocols, and services may not work correctly when connecting to the Internet. There are a few different ways to handle it, depending on how your DSL connection is implemented (Single static IP or multiple static IPs).

Bear in mind that Ethernet specifications limit cables to 100m (~330 ft) between any two devices.

If there is any chance at all of using a VPN connection (either to join a remote network or for remote access to your network), avoid using 192.168.0.x or 192.168.1.x as your private, internal addressing scheme. Otherwise, if you want to use a VPN connection from somewhere else, there is high likelihood of experiencing an addressing conflict that will render the VPN nonfunctional.

The MTU on the WAN interface of your Linksys router should be set to 1492, not the default 1500. This is due to DSL overhead.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2014, 04:18:34 PM by Jonathan Johnson »
Logged
Stop confusing the issue with facts and logic!

Tommy Peel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1468
  • Longview, Texas
Re: OT Network question....
« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2014, 04:32:10 PM »

Seems reasonable to me. The Ubiquiti gear works well. Using the same SSIDs and passwords simplifies roaming. I believe that you will need to designate one computer as a "controller" for the Ubiquiti access points; it will have software running that will manage the connections and ensure smooth roaming between APs. This PC will need to be powered on at all times.
This shouldn't be a problem; they have some pretty powerful machines that they leave running in the office all the time.

A question: is the Linksys wireless router separate from the DSL modem, or is it the same? If they are separate devices, you should to try to configure them in such a way as to avoid "double NAT". Double NAT will usually be OK for simple web browsing, but other applications, protocols, and services may not work correctly when connecting to the Internet. There are a few different ways to handle it, depending on how your DSL connection is implemented (Single static IP or multiple static IPs).
The Linksys router is separate from the DSL modem. The model has 4(I think) ethernet ports on it and I believe is acting as a router at the moment. I'll have to try and configure it differently(bridge mode?) to avoid a double NAT. Would a different router be better? One of the Ubiquity models? I know they're higher quality but would there be much performance improvement?
Bear in mind that Ethernet specifications limit cables to 100m (~330 ft) between any two devices.
I don't think there'll be a problem but I imagine that the hangar is getting pretty close. I know the internet works fine out there.
If there is any chance at all of using a VPN connection (either to join a remote network or for remote access to your network), avoid using 192.168.0.x or 192.168.1.x as your private, internal addressing scheme. Otherwise, if you want to use a VPN connection from somewhere else, there is high likelihood of experiencing an addressing conflict that will render the VPN nonfunctional.
I'll probably go ahead and plan for VPN use as that could be a possibility. I don't think they are using one right now but with they way their business is it wouldn't surprise me if they want to in the future.
The MTU on the WAN interface of your Linksys router should be set to 1492, not the default 1500. This is due to DSL overhead.
Will do if it's not already done.

Much thanks for the info,
Tommy
« Last Edit: June 07, 2014, 04:34:12 PM by Tommy Peel »
Logged

Jonathan Johnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3209
  • Southwest Washington (state, not DC)
Re: OT Network question....
« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2014, 05:03:39 PM »

The Linksys router is separate from the DSL modem. The model has 4(I think) ethernet ports on it and I believe is acting as a router at the moment. I'll have to try and configure it differently(bridge mode?) to avoid a double NAT. Would a different router be better? One of the Ubiquity models? I know they're higher quality but would there be much performance improvement?

I'd recommend bridge mode. If the DSL modem uses a login (PPPoE) you will need to configure the Linksys router to handle the login. However, if you have been assigned multiple static IP addresses, then you don't want to use bridge mode but rather assign your Linksys router one of the "customer use" static addresses.

I don't have any experience with the Ubiquiti routers. My preference is Sonicwall, which runs around $300 MSRP for one of the most basic models (TZ-105) (Newegg has one for $199 right now). They have greater flexibility and are solid performers, but they are more difficult to set up than typical home routers. One thing about Sonicwalls that some people don't like is that registration is mandatory in order to enable the advertised features. Otherwise, it severely limits connections.

There are near-religious wars out there over the best firewalls/routers. I say the best one is the one you understand the best. If you don't understand how your security works, you aren't secure.
Logged
Stop confusing the issue with facts and logic!

Tommy Peel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1468
  • Longview, Texas
Re: OT Network question....
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2014, 05:41:57 PM »

I'd recommend bridge mode. If the DSL modem uses a login (PPPoE) you will need to configure the Linksys router to handle the login. However, if you have been assigned multiple static IP addresses, then you don't want to use bridge mode but rather assign your Linksys router one of the "customer use" static addresses.

I don't have any experience with the Ubiquiti routers. My preference is Sonicwall, which runs around $300 MSRP for one of the most basic models (TZ-105) (Newegg has one for $199 right now). They have greater flexibility and are solid performers, but they are more difficult to set up than typical home routers. One thing about Sonicwalls that some people don't like is that registration is mandatory in order to enable the advertised features. Otherwise, it severely limits connections.

There are near-religious wars out there over the best firewalls/routers. I say the best one is the one you understand the best. If you don't understand how your security works, you aren't secure.

Thanks for the information. We'll probably stick with the Linksys for now unless it doesn't handle Gigabit(I'm nearly positive it does). They'll benefit greatly in the office from Gigabit as they transfer lots of large files between machines on their wired network. Their switch and computers all have Gigabit capability but I'm guessing the cable modem/router the office uses right now doesn't, so all the devices are showing to be running at 10/100.
Logged

Bob Leonard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6807
  • Boston, MA USA
Re: OT Network question....
« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2014, 07:21:58 PM »

Tommy,
Is there any way to bring fiber or copper to the buildings?
Logged
BOSTON STRONG........
Proud Vietnam Veteran

I did a gig for Otis Elevator once. Like every job, it had it's ups and downs.

Tommy Peel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1468
  • Longview, Texas
Re: OT Network question....
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2014, 08:41:44 PM »

Tommy,
Is there any way to bring fiber or copper to the buildings?

Each building has a single CAT5e cable connecting it to the office.

Sent from my Moto X (XT1053) using Tapatalk Pro

Logged

Tim Padrick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 927
  • Indianapolis
    • T.P. Audio
Re: OT Network question....
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2014, 12:40:55 AM »

Sharing works on this arrangement (at least between AV Computer and Laptop - Mouse without borders works on them too):  http://www.padrick.net/LiveSound/TheaterNetwork.jpg
Logged

Jonathan Johnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3209
  • Southwest Washington (state, not DC)
Re: OT Network question....
« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2014, 01:38:45 AM »

Sharing works on this arrangement (at least between AV Computer and Laptop - Mouse without borders works on them too):  http://www.padrick.net/LiveSound/TheaterNetwork.jpg

Looked at the diagram. I saw the note that you "changed all the ip addresses" but every network segment shown is in the same subnet. Routing is going to be impossible if you do that! (Well, you CAN do it with very creative NAT rules, but that's going to require a more expensive product.)

In my opinion, there are far too many routers in your diagram. Rather than get a bunch of $60 home-use routers, get a $300+ business-class router that can be configured with multiple interfaces (not just a switch on the back) and have a single router isolate each of your subnets. In the long run it will be cheaper, easier, and faster. For example, a Sonicwall TZ-105 (the least expensive in their product lineup) can be configured to route between 5 different network segments (including the Internet) with fine-grained firewall rules between each segment. The TZ-105W adds WiFi.
Logged
Stop confusing the issue with facts and logic!

Cailen Waddell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1428
Re: OT Network question....
« Reply #9 on: June 09, 2014, 08:01:15 AM »

Someone educate me - why would you distribute 169.x.x.x addresses?  Isn't that what a self assigned ip would start with? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: OT Network question....
« Reply #9 on: June 09, 2014, 08:01:15 AM »


Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
 



Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.038 seconds with 21 queries.