Alright I was wondering if I can set up two routers in one network. I wanted to separate the the D-Link router just to use for the desktop computer using Gigabit and the Linksys router for all things wireless (PS2 on network adapter + linksys wireless-g game adapter, sony ux50 pda, and the sony tr3a). I made a diagram of what i wanted to do:
would it work? or can anyone tell me a proper way of setting it up? thanks!
Don’t do it that way. There are issues with NAT and the fact that cable modems “lock on” to the first MAC they see. My question is: why do you need to use both the D-Link and the Linksys routers? Both support 80.211g and have integrated switches. Why not just use one?
I don’t see what the point of only having one computer connected over Giga cabling is. Any network transfers are going to be restricted to the speed of the wireless and any online gaming by the speed of your DSL.
I also didn’t understand the 1 computer on a giga switch requirement…but I just assumed he had a reason, like maybe friends come over and wire into it for gaming…otherwise, yea, no point in that…
Second, the post about NAT issues, can you expand on that…I’ve never had a problem running two firewalls, though I typically use on off the DMZ port of another…but I’d be interested in what the issue is…just out of curiosity.
Well to be honest, Gigabit is not something every device has, but hopefully every device will have. It’s sort of like saying (a few years ago) why go 802.11g when 99% of devices are 802.11b? Eventually he will get more Gigabit items and its better to start early then buy identical things a few years with the higher speed.
[quote author=“tifosiv122”]Well to be honest, Gigabit is not something every device has, but hopefully every device will have. It’s sort of like saying (a few years ago) why go 802.11g when 99% of devices are 802.11b? Eventually he will get more Gigabit items and its better to start early then buy identical things a few years with the higher speed.
Erik
Well I guess if more computers are going to be added to the giga switch soon. Otherwise it seems to be complicating the issue!
[quote author=“hylton”]Second, the post about NAT issues, can you expand on that…I’ve never had a problem running two firewalls, though I typically use on off the DMZ port of another…but I’d be interested in what the issue is…just out of curiosity.
I wasn’t referring to your post. I was referring to the original one. At the time I posted, I didn’t realize you had. What do you mean by “DMZ port”? Are you setting the second router as the “DMZ host” from the first? You’d basically be setting the first firewall to allow all.
[quote author=“tifosiv122”]Eventually he will get more Gigabit items and its better to start early then buy identical things a few years with the higher speed.
I’m not really convinced of the need for gigabit in home networks, or on most desktops for that matter. On a non-enterprise level GB ethernet doesn’t give you much over 100 Mb, even with all the modern multimedia applications people use today.
[quote author=“Drachen”]I’m not really convinced of the need for gigabit in home networks, or on most desktops for that matter. On a non-enterprise level GB ethernet doesn’t give you much over 100 Mb, even with all the modern multimedia applications people use today.
I recently started changing over my network to gigabit, mind you I move TBs of data over my network weekly, the difference to me is night and day. Eventually with larger multimedia files, more networked appliances, etc, gigabit will become standard…but I agree, most people, right now don’t need it. However, the prices for 10/100 and 10/100/1000 routers aren’t that different if you hunt around (my 8 port cost $18 more then a 10/100 8 port) so its like a safe or sorry thing.
[quote author=“tifosiv122”]I recently started changing over my network to gigabit, mind you I move TBs of data over my network weekly, the difference to me is night and day. Eventually with larger multimedia files, more networked appliances, etc, gigabit will become standard…
I don’t agree. You’re the exception, not the rule. I stream DVDs from my workstation via VLC and it’s only 5 Mbps. I can’t imagine anyone but the most obsessive or hardcore data packrats needing 1000 Mbps. The way DRM is heading (thanks, Steve, Bill and Howard! :barf:) most people won’t get their content from their in-house media server, but direct to their workstation over the Internet. Technology is in direct opposition with content companies, and it’s the DRM people who have the legal and business upper-hand right now. Fuckers.
[quote author=“DrachenI wasn’t referring to your post. I was referring to the original one. At the time I posted, I didn’t realize you had. What do you mean by “DMZ port”? Are you setting the second router as the “DMZ host” from the first? You’d basically be setting the first firewall to allow all.
Oh, thanks…I just wasn’t clear…yea, I thought you meant not to use my suggestion…I’m not a networking guru by any means and it just sounded like something I might have done wrong or didn’t know about…
On the DMZ thing, basically yea, although I’m not running the same setup currently, at one point I had two firewalls running…one for my personal stuff, and one for friends/family that came over, so that i never gave out my wireless pass-key…I could have done it w/ just a second WAP, but I had upgraded from ‘b’ to ‘pre-n’ and just wanted to reuse my old ‘b’ device to act as a secondary connection point for company. I had it hanging off the DMZ of the pre-n router. My pre-n wasn’t running DHCP and all my personal client machines at home were static IP assigned…the router hanging off a port was then DHCP for company (wired or wireless ‘b’).
At least that’s what I think I had setup, it’s been awhile…
Yea, DMZ port was a bad term to call it, what I meant was that I had assigned the IP of the second firewall to the DMZ of the newer pre-n router…then the firewall on the old ‘b’ device (I thought) acted as the firewall for the clients attached to that router.
hmmmmm…now that i talk that out, mabye the ‘b’ device was just an AP at that point and nobody that was was using it was really behind a firewall ???
I’m still not really understanding. You didn’t want to give out your passphrase so you set up an entirely seprate AP into your private network? That’s kind of like not wanting to give out your deadbolt key so you make a back door and just put one lock on it and give your relatives the key. If you put the ouside NIC of the router towards your router, you ended up protecting them from you, not the opposite.
[quote author=“Drachen”][quote author=“tifosiv122”]I recently started changing over my network to gigabit, mind you I move TBs of data over my network weekly, the difference to me is night and day. Eventually with larger multimedia files, more networked appliances, etc, gigabit will become standard…
I don’t agree. You’re the exception, not the rule. I stream DVDs from my workstation via VLC and it’s only 5 Mbps. I can’t imagine anyone but the most obsessive or hardcore data packrats needing 1000 Mbps. The way DRM is heading (thanks, Steve, Bill and Howard! :barf:) most people won’t get their content from their in-house media server, but direct to their workstation over the Internet. Technology is in direct opposition with content companies, and it’s the DRM people who have the legal and business upper-hand right now. Fuckers.
[quote author=“tifosiv122”]Happy New Year!
New Year, fuck yeah! :D
My friend didn’t believe it made a difference either, so I ran a test and sent him the video…I don’t remember the exact specs but I think it was a 10GB file. I first did a 100 transfer, then the same file 1000 transfer. the 1000 was about 20-25% faster. It might not seem like much, but add it up, transfer + transfer, day after day, it really helps. It really depends on how much and how big the files are. Unfortunately I deleted the video, but I can reshoot it if you want to see, the difference is amazing if you’ve never seen them side by side.
[quote author=“tifosiv122”]My friend didn’t believe it made a difference either, so I ran a test and sent him the video…I don’t remember the exact specs but I think it was a 10GB file. I first did a 100 transfer, then the same file 1000 transfer. the 1000 was about 20-25% faster. It might not seem like much, but add it up, transfer + transfer, day after day, it really helps. It really depends on how much and how big the files are. Unfortunately I deleted the video, but I can reshoot it if you want to see, the difference is amazing if you’ve never seen them side by side.
Oh, Ive seen the results, but in a datacenter where it actually impacts important systems regular performance. A 25% performance improvement on a 10GB file transfer isn’t exactly earth-shattering. It’s also a lot more than the average Joe needs. At my company the only people I can imagine giving GB ethernet to are our art dept and the guy in charge of generating webserver log file reports. I’m not even crying for it, and I deal with out digital music distribution arm, which routinely deals with unencoded PCM music files.
If GB ethernet improves your life, by all means go for it. I just don’t think it’s that important a technology for the next few years.
I seem to also recall something I had done w/ regard to different subnets…i.e. my main router was configured w/ static IP clients in the 10.0.0.X ranges while my second router was handing out 10.0.1.X addresses over DHCP. All my network devices (printers, main router) were 10.0.0.X as well. So, I might have had file/printer sharing issues w/ that kind of a setup, but I don’t recall ever having to allow the 10.0.1.X clients (on the second router) into my machines to get to anything…so again, it worked, but I’m not sure how…haha…
