ProSoundWeb Community

Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => The Basement => Topic started by: Tommy Peel on June 07, 2014, 03:49:30 PM

Title: OT Network question....
Post by: Tommy Peel 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 (http://amzn.com/B004XXMUCQ); 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
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Jonathan Johnson 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.
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Tommy Peel 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
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Jonathan Johnson 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.
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Tommy Peel 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.
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Bob Leonard on June 07, 2014, 07:21:58 PM
Tommy,
Is there any way to bring fiber or copper to the buildings?
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Tommy Peel 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

Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Tim Padrick 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
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Jonathan Johnson 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.
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Cailen Waddell 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
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Bob Leonard on June 11, 2014, 05:57:27 PM
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
Cailen,
Contrary to popular belief the 192.168.x.x network is nothing more than a network which is commonly used for in house subnets. Networks outside the "house", such as those networks used on the WWW are fully licensed, registered, and controlled/monitored. That is not to say the you can't use anything you want for a subnet on your own PRIVATE network, such as the network we are talking about here, or even for a very large company, as long as those addresses are restricted to traffic on your network only. The 169.x.x.x network you're are referring to is probably a loopback address.
 
I get a big kick out of some of the "solutions" I see published on the web, especially on this site. I say that because my day job for the past 30 years has been to design, implement and service some of the largest wide area networks, storage and server farms in the world. That would include a state police department, a "fast lane" network, and the network for a federal agency that gives old people money. It can be fun, and it can be exasperating.
 
The OP's goal here is to provide connectivity to three (3) buildings located in close proximity to each other. That means nothing more than three (3) workgroup solutions and a method for establishing a connection to the outside world (WWW). The OP states the site already has a DSL router being used by all three buildings, and copper running from the outer buildings to the house, so I would do nothing more than what I outline below.
 
The reason behind the use of static IP addresses.
 
The use of static networks has special meaning in larger networks. Servers, storage, firewalls, routers and most devices of that type are ALWAYS given a static address in larger or corporate networks. This is done for a number of reasons, too many to speak of in this short document. What I'll ask is that some of the reasoning to use and apply a static IP address become more apparent when creating small business and home networks. Yes, DHCP is your friend, but in corporate networks dedicated and redundant DHCP servers are used for the purpose of allocating IP addresses from groups allocated for specific devices, many of which now allow that device to retain an allocated IP address forever.
 
When creating smaller networks it is more often than not an advantage to use a static address for all of the devices attached to that network even though the initial planning may seem tedious for many, and not understood by most, a static IP address will always be your friend . The major advantage will be when problems arise (And they will), when a device is upgraded, when additional devices are added, and when devices on the network stop working or can't be found. It is and always will be easier to trouble shoot the lost connectivity of a device when you know the device located at 192.168.1.22 is a printer located at location "C" vs. "Let's walk around through three buildings and see where the little light on the port is off. ". Every aspect of network control and device connectivity is simplified by using a static address, except the initial assignment. So, if you like DHCP and it makes your life easy it's the thing do. If your network has grown a bit and the time and skill required to find a fault is more important, then I suggest static addresses. Ands finally, it doesn't hurt to put a label with the name and IP address on the front device. You may just one day thank me for that.
 
For this solution the OP will purchase;
3ea. low cost 10/100/1000 8 port hubs
2ea. single port WAPS
Enough Ethernet patch cables to connect all of the devices using the network to the 8 port hubs.
Total cost should be less than $2-400 plus labor if charged
 
 
STEP #1 - Assigning IP addresses
 
Plan your IP scheme for the devices to be used, and using 192.168.1.xxx, that could and should by using, for a small network of this type, static addresses, and a flat network. (All the same subnet). There is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED for a separate subnet in each building. Not only is this complexity not required, but additional costs not needed.
 
MASK = 255.255.255.0, class "C", allows up to 253 devices attached
 
192.168.1.1 = gateway (DSL router)
 
192.168.1.10 thru .20 = servers
 
192.168.1. 21 thru .30 = printers
 
192.168.1. 31 thru .100 = PC's, tablets, etc.
 
192.168.1.101 thru .200 = all other devices
 
192.168.1.201 thru .210 - WAPs
 
Name each building. In this case we'll call the house with the DSL "A", and the outlying work spaces "B" and "C" for simplicity.
 
STEP #2 - Creating your workgroup/small office/building network
 
Start by creating a workgroup/office network in each building using a single 10/100/1000 8 port switch, no routers required. Attach each device to the 8 port hub using copper, CAT 5 or 6, your choice. Address your devices as above and ping each device from within the building to insure connectivity, that the interface is active, properly addressed, and talking to the other devices in that building. Do this for all three buildings, "A", "B" and "C".
Wireless devices will be connected at a later step.
 
STEP #3 - Attaching the main building to the WWW.
Using a patch cable attach the 8 port hub located in building "A" to the DSL router. This should be the only connection attached to the router other than the wide area connection itself, the connection from the outside world to the router.
 
STEP #4, part a - Connecting the buildings/offices together
Go to building "A". Attach the copper running from buildings "B" and "C" to the DSL router using two of the available three (3) remaining ports on the DSL router, or connect these two cables to the 8 port hub previously attached to the DSL router in STEP #3 using ports 1 and 2 ("A" "B").
 
STEP #4, part b - Connecting the buildings/offices together
Go to building "B" and attach the cable running from building "A" to port 8 of the 8 port hub in building "B". Using any attached system ping the .1 gateway, any other active system in that building, and any active system in building "A". You should receive a response from every device. Using your web browser attempt to access the WWW. Google is a good choice for a site to use for this test. If all tests pass then building "B"s network is complete with the exception of wireless connections, and you can now move to building "C" and repeat.
 
NOTE: If during you tests you fail to receive a reply from a device, or if your devices can not ping any device on the network, start by checking the IP address and mask. If you can not access the WWW then check your DSL router security features for blocked MAC addresses, IP addresses, etc.
 
STEP #5 - Wireless connectivity, IPads, printers, etc.
 
In this case speak with the client and the need for wireless connectivity. If the client has a DSL router which provides wireless connectivity, and provides that connectivity RELIABLY from building "A", "B", and "C" you're all set, and the installation and costs end here.
 
If reliability is an issue you will use a WAP (wireless access point) to provide connectivity. This requires nothing more than a WAP attached to the 8 port hub. This DOES NOT require an additional router or subnet and all devices attaching to the WAP will use a provided and available 192.168 address from the proper IP group listed above. The WAP itself is addressed using one of the IP addresses from the group reserved for WAPs. Good connectivity can be achieved inside, and probably outside of the buildings by attaching a WAP to the hubs in buildings "B" and "C".
The cost for this whole network would be less than $3-400, and time to install should be less than 4 hours. Congratulations, you've just learned how to create a low cost working and reliable flat network. Welcome to networking 101.
 
Switch - Your choice.
http://www.netgear.com/home/products/networking/switches/GS608.aspx#tab-overview (http://www.netgear.com/home/products/networking/switches/GS608.aspx#tab-overview)
 
WAP - My choice for this project. I use these often and have one in my own racks for access to my board, DSP, computer, etc.. If you use the WAP below then you could also eliminate the cost of the 8 port switch IF you only need to attach 3 or fewer devices in that building that are not wireless.
http://www.netgear.com/business/products/wireless/soho-wireless/wn604.aspx (http://www.netgear.com/business/products/wireless/soho-wireless/wn604.aspx)
 
 
 
As a final note a fully redundant network can be created by using an additional two (2) interface adapters. ($50).
 
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Jonathan Johnson on June 12, 2014, 01:04:21 AM
Cailen,
Contrary to popular belief the 192.168.x.x network is nothing more than a network which is commonly used for in house subnets. Networks outside the "house", such as those networks used on the WWW are fully licensed, registered, and controlled/monitored. That is not to say the you can't use anything you want for a subnet on your own PRIVATE network, such as the network we are talking about here, or even for a very large company, as long as those addresses are restricted to traffic on your network only. The 169.x.x.x network you're are referring to is probably a loopback address.


Actually, the 169.254.0.0/16 addresses are APIPA (Automatic Private IP Addressing) addresses. They are not to be used either for statically assigned or DHCP-assigned addresses; they are used by individual devices to be able to discover each other when no preset addressing scheme is available. Like standard private IP address (10.0.0.0/8, 192.168.0.0/16, 172.16.0.0/12), they are not routed over the Internet but must be masqueraded behind a public IP address.

Loopback addresses are 127.0.0.0/8, with 127.0.0.1 being the most common and always referring to "localhost." Loopback addresses are not routed internally or externally.

Myself, I do like to use DHCP for PCs and printers. For printers I use DHCP reservations to ensure they always receive a known IP address. For any mobile device, DHCP is an absolute must, but if you want it to have a specific IP address when on a specific network, then a DHCP reservation is your friend. I think that DHCP makes network management a lot simpler, especially when changes are necessary. If I don't have to visit every PC just because the DNS server address changed, that makes my life a lot easier. For any "network infrastructure" devices and for critical servers, I agree that static addresses are best.

I also use a numbering scheme where printers are in one range of addresses, PCs in another, servers in another, etc. When you need to set up something new, you shouldn't be pulling numbers out of the air, you should be following a documented plan.

But yeah, I suppose if there are only 3 PCs and two printers on the network, static just might be easier.

One more tip to the OP: terminate any wired network drops with jacks at the device end and patch panel at the switch end. Then use patch cables of appropriate length to connect everything. Terminating in-wall wiring with RJ-45 plugs looks sloppy, increases the likelihood of failure, and limits your ability to reposition things.

P.S. -- I've written the addresses above in "CIDR" notation, which is a shorthand way of describing the first address (network address), last address (broadcast address), and subnet mask for a given address range. There are a few other reserved IPv4 subnets that are outside of the scope of this discussion.
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Tommy Peel on June 12, 2014, 01:22:23 AM
Myself, I do like to use DHCP for PCs and printers. For printers I use DHCP reservations to ensure they always receive a known IP address. For any mobile device, DHCP is an absolute must, but if you want it to have a specific IP address when on a specific network, then a DHCP reservation is your friend. I think that DHCP makes network management a lot simpler, especially when changes are necessary. If I don't have to visit every PC just because the DNS server address changed, that makes my life a lot easier. For any "network infrastructure" devices and for critical servers, I agree that static addresses are best.

I also use a numbering scheme where printers are in one range of addresses, PCs in another, servers in another, etc. When you need to set up something new, you shouldn't be pulling numbers out of the air, you should be following a documented plan.

But yeah, I suppose if there are only 3 PCs and two printers on the network, static just might be easier.

I'm glad I'm not the only person that likes using DHCP with reservation over actual static addresses. At my day job(IT person at a real estate office, 15-20 people work there) the network I inherited had a mix of static addresses and DHCP. After many headaches I've switched everything to DHCP with address reservation for anything that needs a fixed address. Since then pretty much all network problems have gone away.

Bob,

While I know static addresses might be the best for a lot of situations I don't know how well it will work here.  There are likely to be new/different devices coming in frequently and I know he won't want to be setting IP addresses manually all the time; not to mention there will undoubtedly be may mobile devices in use and, as Johnathan said, you need DHCP for mobile devices.

Another thing is that IME Windows file sharing tends to work fine even when machines don't have fixed addresses although I agree that many other things are made easier with fixed addresses.

Also, we're wanting to have full network access from all areas with the wireless; we don't want each wireless network to be an isolated Internet access point with no access to the office network.

I hope I'm making sense here. I just don't see a benefit to static IP addresses when I can use DHCP reservation and get the same benefits without the drawbacks. Also I don't need a switch in each building as the only place with devices using wired Ethernet is the office. Everywhere else just needs wireless.

Sent from my Moto X (XT1053) using Tapatalk Pro
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Tommy Peel on June 12, 2014, 01:24:34 AM
Deleted, double post
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Bob Leonard on June 12, 2014, 07:11:01 AM
Tommy,
It look's like there's a little more than just 3 buildings attached in the plan here. I don't remember saying static for the wireless devices ATTACHING to the WAPs, and if I did that would be a mistake. If you like DHCP then use it. I'm not against it and use it all the time, so let me be more precise. Try to use a static address on the CORE components of the network. It will be helpful in the end.

If everything else is a wireless device the WAP I left the link for is a perfect low cost device. One in each building and four (4) available ports for the occasional hard wired device or printer.  It couldn't be easier or cost less. Have fun.
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Nate Armstrong on June 12, 2014, 12:57:19 PM
I'm lazy and didnt read all the comments,  IMHO, you are on a great path and that is what i would recommend for this install. 3 Ubiquity Wireless APs is a great setup.  You do have to install the software on a workstation. The software finds the wireless AP's automatically and then you set it up. take less than 15 minutes.  you do not have to keep the software running.  So far the ones i have installed have had no maintenance required and the range is good for the price of the units.

for what its worth, I work in the IT field.
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Ryan Peacher on June 12, 2014, 06:02:09 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.

From my experience, you should not have to have a dedicated machine to run the Ubiquity software...

With the UniFi system, there is a piece of software you use to configure and monitor the wireless network status, but it does not have to run all of the time for the system to work. With the AirMax systems, like the Bullet, is uses a browser-configuration, like most linksys and other SOHO routers do...

I deployed a 9 access-point system here at our theater using the Ubiquity UniFi system, and their EdgeMax router, and have had great results so-far...
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Jonathan Johnson on June 12, 2014, 07:42:21 PM
From my experience, you should not have to have a dedicated machine to run the Ubiquity software...

With the UniFi system, there is a piece of software you use to configure and monitor the wireless network status, but it does not have to run all of the time for the system to work. With the AirMax systems, like the Bullet, is uses a browser-configuration, like most linksys and other SOHO routers do...

I deployed a 9 access-point system here at our theater using the Ubiquity UniFi system, and their EdgeMax router, and have had great results so-far...

You're absolutely correct; I was incorrect in my previous statement. It had been a while since I dealt with Uiquiti gear, so I was misremembering things. Just installed some yesterday, so it's fresh in my mind now. :-) The controller software only has to be running if you are using some of the advanced authentication features, like single-use passwords. For most installations, it's only used for the setup and can then be turned off.
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Tommy Peel on June 13, 2014, 03:17:33 PM
Another question about this setup:

I went over there yesterday after they stopped working for the day so I could test a couple of things with the network. I tried moving their existing Linksys ea4500 wireless router into the office from the house to see if it had enough wireless range to cover both the office and house adequately. I tested the network with my phone and was able to get usable signal throughout the house; also by moving the wireless router to the office and connecting everything correctly(DSL modem directly into the internet port on the router and the office switch into one of the router's LAN ports) I was able to access the office's computer's file sharing from the wireless in the house(which wasn't possible before).

The issue is that I wasn't able to get the office computers to connect at Gigabit speed. Setup: Linksys router(Gigabit capable) connected to the DSL modem and to the office switch(looks like a cheap one but it's Gigabit capable). Despite everything appearing to be able to run at Gigabit the office switch was showing 10/100(orange light) on all connections instead of Gigabit(Green light). Any ideas? Cabling issue? Setting issue?
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Jonathan Johnson on June 13, 2014, 03:54:55 PM
The issue is that I wasn't able to get the office computers to connect at Gigabit speed. Setup: Linksys router(Gigabit capable) connected to the DSL modem and to the office switch(looks like a cheap one but it's Gigabit capable). Despite everything appearing to be able to run at Gigabit the office switch was showing 10/100(orange light) on all connections instead of Gigabit(Green light). Any ideas? Cabling issue? Setting issue?

What I'd do is grab another Gigabit switch and plug one of the PCs directly into it with a new patch cable, bypassing any installed wiring. If you get a GB connection, it's probably a cabling issue. If it connects at 100Mb, it's probably a settings issue. If you have a crossover cables in the mix (terminated T-568A on one end, T568B on the other) that will likely force it to a lower speed. Crossover cables may not play nicely with Gigabit, since only two pairs are crossed and GB uses all four pairs.

However, I have seen where some NICs have trouble negotiating with some switches, and either they negotiate to a lower speed, they fail to negotiate altogether, or they link up at high speed but are slower than an ant crawling through molasses.
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Tommy Peel on June 13, 2014, 03:58:47 PM
What I'd do is grab another Gigabit switch and plug one of the PCs directly into it with a new patch cable, bypassing any installed wiring. If you get a GB connection, it's probably a cabling issue. If it connects at 100Mb, it's probably a settings issue. If you have a crossover cables in the mix (terminated T-568A on one end, T568B on the other) that will likely force it to a lower speed. Crossover cables may not play nicely with Gigabit, since only two pairs are crossed and GB uses all four pairs.

However, I have seen where some NICs have trouble negotiating with some switches, and either they negotiate to a lower speed, they fail to negotiate altogether, or they link up at high speed but are slower than an ant crawling through molasses.

It very well could be some poorly terminated cables. It looks like most of their networking infrastructure is made of homemade cables. There is a patch panel in the cabinet with the switch. I have no idea how any of it is terminated. Probably I'll try connecting the existing switch directly to my MacBook or one of their computers and go from there... It might be a long day.

Sent from my Moto X (XT1053) using Tapatalk Pro

Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Tommy Peel on June 13, 2014, 04:04:02 PM
Another thought: is there a cheap network tester to verify that cables are wired correctly. I realize that truly verifying if a cable runs at a given speed takes an expensive unit. I'm mainly interested in whether it's electrically correct.

Sent from my Moto X (XT1053) using Tapatalk Pro

Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Bob Leonard on June 13, 2014, 05:22:33 PM
There's plenty available. Look for one that also tell distance to fault and will also tone the cable so it can be traced in a bundle or group of cables. Try Fluke, Palladin, etc.. For a low cost do a lot type of tester one of my favorites is the Lansmart. Here is a link to the Hobbes site and their products which can be found just about anywhere.

http://www.hobbes-europe.com/catalog.php5?catalog_id=2&language_id=2 (http://www.hobbes-europe.com/catalog.php5?catalog_id=2&language_id=2)

Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Jonathan Johnson on June 13, 2014, 07:34:03 PM
Another thought: is there a cheap network tester to verify that cables are wired correctly. I realize that truly verifying if a cable runs at a given speed takes an expensive unit. I'm mainly interested in whether it's electrically correct.

One common problem with amateur homemade cables is mixed up pairs. Each pair of wires is a signal line, and if you mix them up you'll get the + of one signal with the + or - of another signal, or some such cluster. They may be wired the same on both ends, but that doesn't mean it will work properly. It would be just as if you were building an audio snake and terminated the red wire from channel 6 and the black wire from channel 12 into the jack for channel 3. Imagine the crosstalk! If you stick with one of the two accepted pinout standards, TIA/EIA-568 T568A or T568B, life will be a lot easier. I don't know how it is where you are, but in my neck of the woods T568B is the most common so that is what I use.

The cheap testers won't be able to tell you if there are messed-up pairs if the pinout is the same on both ends, because they only do a continuity test. More expensive ones do a standing wave test to determine the length, but that still isn't sophisticated enough to detect mixed up pairs. The cheapest tool to detect mixed up pairs is the eyes in your own head.

Another common problem is stripping away too much of the jacket and untwisting the pairs at the termination. I had one customer that had very poor network performance. I opened up the jacks and discovered that between 1 and 2 inches of the outer jacket had been stripped away and the wires untwisted. That was enough to impact performance. I reterminated them, keeping the jacket as close to the end as possible and maintaining the twist all the way to the IDC stab. Worked much better after that. When terminated with RJ45 plugs, the jacket should be inside the plug under the first strain relief.
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Tommy Peel on June 14, 2014, 11:27:06 AM
One common problem with amateur homemade cables is mixed up pairs. Each pair of wires is a signal line, and if you mix them up you'll get the + of one signal with the + or - of another signal, or some such cluster. They may be wired the same on both ends, but that doesn't mean it will work properly. It would be just as if you were building an audio snake and terminated the red wire from channel 6 and the black wire from channel 12 into the jack for channel 3. Imagine the crosstalk! If you stick with one of the two accepted pinout standards, TIA/EIA-568 T568A or T568B, life will be a lot easier. I don't know how it is where you are, but in my neck of the woods T568B is the most common so that is what I use.

The cheap testers won't be able to tell you if there are messed-up pairs if the pinout is the same on both ends, because they only do a continuity test. More expensive ones do a standing wave test to determine the length, but that still isn't sophisticated enough to detect mixed up pairs. The cheapest tool to detect mixed up pairs is the eyes in your own head.

Another common problem is stripping away too much of the jacket and untwisting the pairs at the termination. I had one customer that had very poor network performance. I opened up the jacks and discovered that between 1 and 2 inches of the outer jacket had been stripped away and the wires untwisted. That was enough to impact performance. I reterminated them, keeping the jacket as close to the end as possible and maintaining the twist all the way to the IDC stab. Worked much better after that. When terminated with RJ45 plugs, the jacket should be inside the plug under the first strain relief.

I suspect that what's going on is a combination of all these things. Some of the homemade patch cables looked pretty bad; you don't want to see the network cabinet in the office.... Guess I've got my work cut out for me. I'll probably just skip the tester for now as they won't tell me very much.
Title: Re: OT Network question....
Post by: Steven Barnes on June 14, 2014, 11:41:49 AM
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 little late to the game on this one, but I essentially I have this same AP setup covering a 20,000sqft shop with great success. We are using the Unifi AP Pro with a different switch/router setup.

A note with the Ubiquiti AP, you will not need a designated computer for the controller up and running 24/7. You will need the software to configure them the first time, but after they are configured you are good to go. You will only need to software to do firmware upgrades or make changes to the AP. You can also tie them into an smtp server and they will send you emails if there are any issues etc.