|
Hi Bjorn,
Thanks for ar advice,but you think that it will
be able to handle all the requests from 50 odd terminals effictively? Also any
suggestion on the additional Host IPs that I have been given by the
ISP?
Thanks
Harish
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 4:44
AM
Subject: RE: Network Setup Opinion
Needed
Remember that
Ethernet is a collision based system i.e. the more collisions the less
performance. Hence large networks are typically have low performance
because of the greater number of collisions. So option 2 would give you
better performance because it is broken up into smaller areas hence fewer
collisions, also there are fewer route table updates. So while the
second is more complicated it is actually a better setup. Token ring
would be better for your option 1. That’s my 0.02
cents.
-----Original
Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Enroth Björn
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 5:47
PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: SV: Network Setup Opinion
Needed
Why complicate things
when not needed? The only thing you can gain from separating the clients is
less broadcast, and maybe some increased security between the groups of
clients. The Linux box would also have more to do in your second option. My
suggestion is that you go for option 1. Remember to NOT set any default gw at
the internal interface. This could confuse the routing
daemon.
-----Ursprungligt
meddelande-----
Från:
Harish Sabnani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 29 september 2003
19:45
Till:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kopia:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ämne: Network Setup Opinion
Needed
Thank you for taking interest
in my queries,I need a suggestion from you on the way I should set up my
network,I had posted this mssg on the mailing list but had no response,hence
I am mailing this to you,your suggestion will be highly
appreciated.
Hi All,
I have set up a
Linux Box with NAT/MASQ, and Squid as an Internet server for my local LAN
with one system on a trial basis and I see that the performance has been
great.However I am apprehensive about the way the way traffice and
loadbalancing will be hadled by Linux box as there will be 50 Machines
banging in with requests,hence I have thought of two ways to
connect,pls have alook below and pass your valuable comments. I have a 128
Kbps leased line coming thru a router.
Option1
50 Windows
Cleints with IP Adressese 192.168.0.1-50 GW 192.168.0.100
Linux Server
Eth0 with Ip Adress 212.72.11.89 GW 212.72.11.201
Linux server Eth1 with
Ip Address 192.168.0.100 GW 192.168.0.100
so I will use Ip NAT/MASQ
techniques where all requests on Eth1 will be forwarded to
Eth0.
Option 2
3 Sepearte Networks
Network 1 Ip
addresses 192.168.0.1-15
Network 2 Ip addresses 192.168.1.1-15
Network
3 Ipaddresses 192.168.2.1-20
Linux Server Eth0 with Ipaddress
212.72.11.89 GW 212.72.11.201
Linux Server Eth1 with Ipaddress
192.168.0.254 GW
212.72.11.89
Eth2 with Ipaddress 192.168.1.254 GW
212.72.11.89
Eth3 with Ipaddress 192.168.2.254 GW
212.72.11.89
In this case I will have to NAT all requests from
Eth1,Eth2,Eth3 to Eth0.
Router Details
Serial IP 212.72.11.202
Mask 255.255.255.252
Network 212.72.11.88 Mask
255.255.255.248
Gatway 212.72.11.201
Host Ips
212.72.11.89
212.72.11.90
212.72.11.91
212.72.11.92
212.72.11.93
212.72.11.94
212.72.11.95
I have abt 6 dedicated host Ips is there a
better way I can utilise this,Pls suggest, I dont want to have a dedicated
FTP or webserver.
Thanks and regards
Harish
|
