Re: I want to link 2 lans at home
From: patrick (erewhon_at_charter.net)
Date: 05/24/04
- Next message: Mattias Honrendgard: "Re: Discover IP address of flea-market print spooler"
- Previous message: Sven Vermeulen: "Re: I can't Telnet to Red Hat machine from Windows"
- In reply to: James Knott: "Re: I want to link 2 lans at home"
- Next in thread: Douglas Mayne: "Re: I want to link 2 lans at home"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 09:57:22 -0500
James Knott wrote:
> Paul Black wrote:
>
>
>>patrick wrote:
>>
>>>To use a mask of /23, the two networks would have to be 192.168.0/24 and
>>>192.168.1/24. So that for the original poster to add the two networks
>>>192.168.1/24 and 192.168.2/24, there must be two bits to include four
>>>networks.
>>
>>Unfortunately that also includes 192.168.0 which is the otherside of the
>>routers.
>>
>
>
> Perhaps the best solution, would be to use an old computer & linux, to set
> up a router between the two networks.
>
Yes this will work to replace the two linksys rather than to add another
gateway to each lan. All the would be required in a linux machine with
three interfaces. There is alot of documentation on this and if a GUI is
required, check out webmin. If there is a second gw on each subnet, then
either a second route must be added to every host. This is not scalable
and is a real pain even for a small number of devices. The other
possibility is to have the linksys route 192.168.[1-2]/24 to the linux
router. The problem with this is that traffic travels suboptimally as
each packet must now traverse the lan twice as it goes from
source_host->linksys->linux_router->dest_host and back. Not really a
problem for small transfers, but for larger files this could present a
problem.
>> You would probably be better off getting rid of one of the routers
>> and puttin everything on a /22 subnet as discussed previously in the
>> thread.
> This is a hassle because it would be convenient if we both could
> service port 80 and port 21...but not out of the question.
I am not sure why using only one linksys would preclude you from using
80 and 21. I believe the linksys has the option of using a bastion host
and forwarding all incoming traffic to a single host or to forward
different ports to different hosts.
As for the question of why go to DHCP, there are a few advantages. One
is that any network changes only really need to happen on the DHCP
server. Two changes vs. eight and you have a small network. If you some
devices you need statically assigned, then every DHCP server I have
worked with will let you associate a mac address with an ip address.
This way, if you can get to the DHCP server remotely, then you can make
a change in the DHCP server config and have someone reboot the device
you are changing. This makes troubleshooting with someone remotely much
easier than trying to walk someone through changing an ip address. This
can be a real chore on things like print servers or other devices that
aren't touched alot. The other thing I like about using a DHCP server is
that it is somewhat self documenting as you can view your lease table
and see what is on your network.
- Next message: Mattias Honrendgard: "Re: Discover IP address of flea-market print spooler"
- Previous message: Sven Vermeulen: "Re: I can't Telnet to Red Hat machine from Windows"
- In reply to: James Knott: "Re: I want to link 2 lans at home"
- Next in thread: Douglas Mayne: "Re: I want to link 2 lans at home"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
