50 User DSL network

[Captain_Rob]

dirtboy ? Internal LAN games would not be an issue since all users would be on a common internal subnet. However, some games would have problems if multiple users from the same gateway wanted to join an external server, since they would all appear to be coming from the same IP (the NAT outside address).

Agamar ? Good point, but I assume DiamondFire13 has already checked into a higher speed line. He is probably limited in DSL speed by the distance from the central office.


The layout I put together for DiamondFire13 is like this:

The internal LAN would use a 10.0.0.0 subnet with a mask of 255.255.0.0 (65,023 possible host addresses)

The routers (gateways) would be 10.0.0.1 / 10.0.0.2 / 10.0.0.3

The PC?s using the 10.0.0.1 gateway would be addressed 10.0.1.1 thru 10.0.1.30

The PC?s using the 10.0.0.2 gateway would be addressed 10.0.2.1 thru 10.0.2.30

The PC?s using the 10.0.0.3 gateway would be addressed 10.0.3.1 thru 10.0.3.30

The PC?s would be installed in an order like this:

Pc1 = 10.0.1.1
Pc2 = 10.0.2.1
Pc3 = 10.0.3.1
Pc4 = 10.0.1.2
Pc5 = 10.0.2.2
Pc6 = 10.0.3.2
Pc7 = 10.0.1.3
?etc

A secondary gateway would be entered into each pc, so in case one of the routers goes down they should switch to the secondary. This secondary gateway would also be entered in an alternating fashion, so if a router does go down, half of the effected users would switch one of the remaining two gateways, and the other half would switch to the other one. Using the same PC order as above, try to follow this:

Primary Gateway / Secondary Gateway
10.0.0.1 / 10.0.0.2
10.0.0.2 / 10.0.0.3
10.0.0.3 / 10.0.0.1
10.0.0.1 / 10.0.0.3
10.0.0.2 / 10.0.0.1
10.0.0.3 / 10.0.0.2
10.0.0.1 / 10.0.0.2
..etc

Did that make any sense? This looks much clearer on the spreadsheet. Anyone see a problem with the design?


DiamondFire13, if this does help you, the only thing I ask in return is for you and your frat buddies to join Team AnandTech and put all those idle CPU?s to work

 

[cavingjan]

I would go with a router. Simpler. More reliable. And you can get a non cheap router for the same cost as a new server.

To tackle the eventuality of buying a server, by all means buy it. That gives your organization some tech support after you are gone. Dell would be the better choice. Besides everything integrated with good NICs is all you need. You're not using this to game with. Lets face it, you build it, you have to support it. Which means 50 agree users when it crashes Friday night and you left for a weekend road trip and won't be home until your 8AM class on Monday...

With that size network, the switches are almost a neccessity.

Also, do not discount people from running Napster and gaming. It only takes one person to start a wave of this type of usage.

If you are using login for Win2000, then you do need a license for each active computer on the network. If you are not using login, then that is going to be a big peer to peer network and will be in some need for organization. And also, Win2000 is overkill. You can get the same setup in winME or win98SE.

But my thoughts are for one bigger pipeline, with a hardware router with a firewall appliance. Cleaner, easier to maintain/monitor, and in the long run cheaper. You may even be able to buy a block of IPs for the house.

 

[DiamondFire13]

Thank you all so much, I will look into everything that you have talked about, right now, it looks like the 3 routers is going to be the way to go.

I am going to join Team Anandtech right now, and put my 1.1 Ghz to work.

Paul

 

[Captain_Rob]

I just happened to be playing with a Linksys router and noticed a small problem with the layout I did. It's no big problem, the concept is still the same, but the Linksys (and maybe others) can't be setup for a subnet larger then 254 hosts. This is not a problem since you only said you need 50 users. I'll update and resend that spreadsheet with a new IP scheme.

 

[Captain_Rob]

DiamondFire13, I've emailed the new spreadsheet to you. Here is the corrected ranges for a 254 host subnet.


The internal LAN would use a 192.168.1.1 subnet with a mask of 255.255.255.0 (254 possible host addresses)

The routers (gateways) would be 192.168.1.251 / 192.168.1.252 / 192.168.1.253

The PC?s using the 192.168.1.251 gateway would be addressed 192.168.1.1 thru 192.168.1.50

The PC?s using the 192.168.1.252 gateway would be addressed 192.168.1.51 thru 192.168.1.100

The PC?s using the 192.168.1.253 gateway would be addressed 192.168.1.101 thru 192.168.1.150

PC# / IP Address / Primary Gateway / Secondary Gateway

Pc1 / 192.168.1.1 / 192.168.1.251 / 192.168.1.252
Pc2 / 192.168.1.51 / 192.168.1.252 / 192.168.1.253
Pc3 / 192.168.1.101 / 192.168.1.253 / 192.168.1.251
Pc4 / 192.168.1.2 / 192.168.1.251 / 192.168.1.253
Pc5 / 192.168.1.52 / 192.168.1.252 / 192.168.1.251
Pc6 / 192.168.1.102 / 192.168.1.253 / 192.168.1.252
Pc7 / 192.168.1.3 / 192.168.1.251 / 192.168.1.252
etc...

 

[slax]

isnt it just 15-17 pc's sharing 1 dsl connection? what if 1 connection has 15 pc's napstering at once and the other has 2.... and maybe the third dsl is doing nothing... it would be muck kewler if you could combine it or something to 1 big connection so that those 17 people will have as fast a connection as they can get. and nog dsl line goes unused....

maybe.... 1 other suggestion..

you could think of something... a rule ore something like that.... 1 connection for gaming.. 1 for the downloads and 1 for other stuff.... so the gamers won't be bothered by the downloaders and the other way around.

or is it just my stupid side talking?

 

[AKA]

Naturally routers is the right way to go. Also makes sure to balance the actual users themselves.
Dont put all gamers on one dsl router, balance each user to what they do and mix it up evenly.

 

[ajskydiver]

Where I work, we have commercial road runner cable access (not sure of the bandwidth, but it's more than enough) going into our Linux server (Caldera, PIII 500, 128MB RAM, 20GB HDD, 2 ethernet cards).

One card is connected to the cable modem...the rest to our hubs...we have more than 125 users using Win95 and 98.

We (the network admin. and myself) installed using the server option and also loaded SQUID. Took us a few hours including reformatting the OS from scratch and then setting the configuration file for SQUID and that was it. Cheap and efficient--SQUID gives you total control of everything you need. Tons less hassle than Win2K anything. The remainder of the HD is for cache.

Coincidence is that we just did this Thurs. because the server failed...after 1.5 years of continuous service, no reboots, etc.

I am sure Linux would suit your needs with alot less trouble.

~AJ

 

[shadow]

SQUID?

linkies?

 

[lumberg]

Just to put in my two cents. I remember hearing something about modem pooling in winnt. Kind of like printer pooling. The outcome is a combined bandwidth, 56+56+56...= more. I wonder if that can be applied to the DSL lines. I hope I'm not wrong with this idea. If so, the routers would be the way to go. El capitan has the right idea.

 

[Superunknown]

Guys just to let you know there is NO way Windows 2000 will support 3 concurrent DSL lines to a single network. What I mean is you cant have 3 768k lines and get 2304k in bandwidth to a single network. YOu pretty much have to do what Captain said and purchase 3 Netgear/Linksys routers and assign 17 or so users to each router via their gateway address. This is the best and easiest way to do it without spending 3000-4000 bucks on a Cisco router that could give you the full 2304k to a single network.

 

[Eug]

Is your DSL PPPoE? That will limit your router choices, but the consumer routers that were mentioned do support PPPoE.

Also, some local providers have a 2.2 or higher Mbps DSL options which might mean savings for you, in the monthly costs of the DSL and the costs of the 2 extra routers if you get 3 lines. (My little Linky router supports 253 users.) Or you could get two faster lines instead of three slower ones. The other bonus of the more expensive DSL is that most get rid of PPPoE for those.

Also, if you already have the hubs, fine, but if you're buying new it seems nowadays that the 16 or 24 port switches are nearly as cheap as the hubs or sometimes even quite a bit cheaper. I've seen 16-port switches from Linksys advertised for CAD$250 (US$165).

So how about... A cheapie 8 port router and three 16-port 10/100 switches? That would set you back about US$700, not including cables.

Or am I out to lunch? (Newbie here)

 

[DiamondFire13]

Hey Everyone,

I am the one who started the thread. For all of you who keep bringing it up, no there is no way to get higher than 768 Mb/s access around me, and cable is not an option. We are almost 100% going to go with 3 routers, 2 24 port switches and then a little 8 port switch to hook the routers into. The 2 24 porters will go on the 2nd and third floor, and the 8 port will be for the routers and the one room on the first floor that needs access. If it is as easy as you all make it sound, running the cable may just be the hardest part. One thing that I know for sure is that the ISP that we are getting access through only allows on IP per DSL line, but since we are establishing a gateway by using the routers, I dont believe that this will be a big deal at all. Also, since the computers will be connecting to different Gateways, will it be possible to share files from the computers in one gateway to the computers in the other gateway. Will it be possible to network game across the 2 gateways. Neither of these are a big deal, I was just wondering.

Thanks alot,
Keep the suggestions coming. I am going to order tuesday night.

Paul Hilgeman

 

[Eug]

I dunno if I understand you correctly.

You seem to be saying:

DSL x 3 ---> router x 3 ---> 8-port switch ---> 24-port switch x 2

 

[DiamondFire13]

yep, thats right, and we wont be ordering for another 2 weeks

 

[macssuck]

DiamondFire13 What brand and model of switches are you purchasing?

 

[Russ]

Damn, this is a great thread. Bump.

Russ, NCNE

 

[DiamondFire13]

I am not sure what we will be ordering, but I think that we will be going with somthing high quality,

probably 3x linksys routers
3x linksys 8 port switches
2x linksys 24 port switches

Paul