Re: Building to Building wan over fibre?
- From: "stephen" <stephen_hope@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:09:34 GMT
"jpd" <read_the_sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:580544F2eml6nU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Begin <1176162722.209820.138600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>given fibre speeds the bottleneck is still the WAN and router, so if doesnt
On 2007-04-09, aramo <bogus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All internet traffic must pass thru a VPN/router black-box over
which we have no control, this VPN is of course located in the 'old'
building and sits between our ADSL box and a switch.
No control at all is bad. If you want the second lan connected by
router, that router box needs to be taught about the second lan. That
will likely mean configuration changes, or if it is another one of those
cheap home routers, a replacement with much less cheap but actually
usefully configurable professional equipment.
really matter for performance reasons where it connects to the LAN.
i wouldnt both for sub 100 devices - get your fibre installed and plug into
If possible I'd like to bridge the two LANs so that old-building gets
192.168.100.1-127 and new-building gets 192.168.100.128-255 but I do
not know what equipment I'd need to achieve this.
That's few enough that you can switch, but it's probably better to get a
(real!) router anyway. Get a networking contractor to set it up for you.
a switch each end.
run the link as if it was an internal fibre backbone within the building -
you shouldnt see any real speed differences whether users & servers are in
the same building or use the link.
My lack of experiance with fibre means I do not even know expactly
what I should tell the contractors to install and how to terminate the
fibre - though I see from other posts here that 'multicore' fibre is
recommended.
You pull cable once. The cable is centimetres or inches thick, whereas
fibres are, well, lots thinner. Fibre isn't exactly cheap, but an extra
strand or two doesn't really drive the price up all that much. By
that logic it pays to lay cable with well more fibre strands than you
directly need. One connection, two strands. Think four minimum, in case
a fibre breaks. Put in extra, you have eight. Put in 12 or 16 to be on
the safe side.
Agreed. it is difficult to buy fibre with less than 8 cores anyway for
infrastructure style use.
Get the installer to terminate properly incl spare cores on a patch panel so
you can use other connections, or swap across if you get a bad core.
the fibre can go a long way, so put the patch panel where you want the
switches to go - a wiring closet or server room if you are set up for such
things rather than next to the end of the duct.
the limiting factor is the duct route.
There are a couple of types fibre. For the distance you're talking
about, multimode (which does not mean `multicore') is fine. What
thickness and connectors you need exactly depends on where you are and
what you want to do with the fibre. Ask a networking contractor.
if you might want to run Gigabit Ethernet at some point, then standard
multimode of 62/125 is good for a 260m run, and better fibre and / or 50/125
about 500m.
Given the costs you might as well run the link as Gigabit straight away
since 100 Mbps isnt much cheaper these days.
but the duct may wander a bit - and the route could be a lot longer than the
straight line distance.
or - if the duct belongs to a telco they will probably not even understand
"multimode" and install single mode instead.
anyhow - just use switches at each end which use pluggable optics so it
doesnt matter.
If someone could provide some specific information on equipment &
terminations or a link to a good tutorial on what is probably a very
simple fibre LAN to LAN setup I would be grateful.
Very simple to experienced people is entirely different from very simple
to the complete layman. On the face of it, the simplest is to use two
100BaseT-to-fibre converters. Or, if you have passable switches, put
GBICs in your switches. The effect is that you effectively have only one
lan.
Given what you are trying to do, if you dont have good switches swap them
out as part of the project.
"roll royce" is some of the Cisco kit, but lots of other good manufacturers.
Go for one with plenty of spare ports....
--
It is simple in the sense that it really doesn't matter what IP address
is in what LAN. It's lots of fun troubleshooting, say, accidental double
IP address configurations accross both buildings, though. A better setup
costs more to setup but is easier and perhaps cheaper to maintain.
--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.
Regards
stephen_hope@xxxxxxxxxxxx - replace xyz with ntl
.
- References:
- Building to Building wan over fibre?
- From: aramo
- Re: Building to Building wan over fibre?
- From: jpd
- Building to Building wan over fibre?
- Prev by Date: Re: Building to Building wan over fibre?
- Previous by thread: Re: Building to Building wan over fibre?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
