RE: Network Setup Opinion Needed

[Otto Haliburton]

Let me butt out cause I was talking about the LAN and I think this discussion is to the interface to the ISP.   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Harish Sabnani Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Network Setup Opinion Needed   Thank you Ben/Bjorn for your responses,well the truth is that I will be swtiching from a Windows Environment, to Linux,my exising server is a PIII with 1GB of RAM. All the 50 Nodes are connected thru three Cisco 2500 Switches, so colission may as such not arise. The only dillema is that will the Linux Box able to handle the requests efficeinetly bcos all the 50 Nodes are usually occupied durinng the peak hours.As you might want to know its a Cybercafe that I am owning and intend to do this there,so i thought load balancing will be more effective if I split the networks.Correct me if i am wrong, I dont want complications as well.   Thanks   Harish ----- Original Message ----- From: Enroth Björn To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 8:00 PM Subject: RE: Network Setup Opinion Needed   Harish, The Linux box is absolutely able to handle 50 clients. In fact it would have to any way with the second option. I also saw someone pointing out collisions. If a switch is used instead of a hub, there are no collisions at all. You could group your internal users and hide them behind different external addresses. But again – Don’t complicate things when you don’t need to. The amount of simultaneous sessions is more than enough if you hide them all behind one address.   Regards /Bjorn   -----Original Message----- From: Harish Sabnani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: den 30 september 2003 10:34 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Network Setup Opinion Needed   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 ----- From: Otto Haliburton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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   Hi,   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.   Regards /Bjorn -----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 Hi Ed, 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