Captain_Rob
Senior member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 334
- 0
- 0
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
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