Re: Ethernet network wiring ?s

In article <K7KdnZFRfdDS0CrenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Norm <NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In article <nospam.News.Bob-911113.20474631122005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Bob Harris <nospam.News.Bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > OP back after 12 months. ;)
> > >
> > > Bob: As I said before your response to this (and other posts) was very
> > > helpful.
> > >
> > > I have a couple of follow-up questions on the above both to make sure
> > > the planned network is designed correctly and for my own education on
> > > networks and router, switches and hubs......
> > >
> > > One question is: what is the difference between a switch and a hub? I
> > > find I that I have a hub in my office that I used at some point in the
> > > distant past (a Netgear EN104TP). It may be speed limited but didn't
> > > know if I could use it for this application.
> >
> > A switch is an active device. It will forward messages only to
> > the ports that have the ethernet address the message is intended
> > to. A switch can also speed match between 10 and 100baseT
> > devices. And if you have a gigabit switch it can speed match
> > between 10, 100, and 1000baseT devices.
> >
> > A hub only deals with devices of the same speed. All messages are
> > sent to all attached devices.
> >
> > In general switches give you more flexibility and if you look shop
> > around (http://dealmac.com), they are not that expensive. But
> > unless you are saturating your network, or you need to mix
> > different speed devices, a 4 port hub can work OK.
>
> Thank you for that education. I'll go with a switch then.
>
>
> >
> > > Second question is whether my planned network setup makes sense.
> > >
> > > Here is our current network:
> > >
> > > DSL Modem -> WAN Router (Netgear 314)
> > >
> > > WAN Router -> Mac and
> > > WAN Router -> Airport Extreme Base Station (with one or two Macs
> > > connected wirelessly)
> >
> > Side note: Since you already have a router, disable the Airport
> > Extreme base station -> Network tab -> "Distribute IP addresses".
> > uncheck the "Distribute IP addresses". When you do this, the
> > "fine print" at the bottom of the configuration panel will say the
> > base station is acting as a bridge.
>
> I managed to see that fine print through my bifocals when setting up. ;)
> So I've done that. Not sure I fully understand what is happening but it
> working well except as noted below.
>
>
> >
> > You want to do this, because you do not want 2 routers on your
> > home network, and you do not want 2 DHCP servers.
>
> If you have the time, would you explain what happens if you do have 2
> routers/DHCP servers on the network. Trying to understand a little more
> about networking.

see below

> >
> > One of the negatives of the side effects of a 2nd router would be
> > that Bonjour (aka Rendezvous, aka zeroconf) will not cross a
> > router. Bonjour is used by Macs to share printers and other local
> > network devices. By disabling "Distribute IP addresses" the WiFi
> > attached Macs will be on the same local network as your ethernet
> > connected Macs.
>
> You lost me there. Sorry.

Some protocols will not cross a router boundary. One of those
protocols, is the one Apple uses to share printers, and advertise
file sharing services. Apple calls this protocol Bonjour. Apple
used to call this protocol Rendezvous, but ran into a copyright
issue with the name Rendezvous. The rest of the world calls this
protocol zeroconf (as in zero configuration needed to use this
protocol).

When I say "will not cross a router boundary", I mean that routers
will not route this protocol. The protocol is only allowed to
take to other computers on the same local network, but not
communicate with computers on a different subnet or with the
internet in general. This is good for you, in that you do not
want to have your printers and file servers advertised to everyone
else on the internet, and when you ask the Mac to show you the
printers and file servers available to you, you do not want a list
of several million choices to wade through.

That is just one reason.

If you have 2 typical home Cable/DSL routers they create private
non-routable subnets. Someone (not you) that has 2 "Active"
routers would create a situation where the computers attached to
the 2nd router could not be directly seen by the other computers.
For examples:

DSL modem -> 1st Router -> 2nd Router --> Mac 3
\-- Mac 1 \---> Mac 4
\- Mac 2

Mac 1 and Mac 2 would not be able to directly see Mac 3 and Mac 4.
And because Mac 1 and Mac 2 have private network addresses, any
attempt by Macs 3 and 4 to talk to Macs 1 and 2 would not succeed
as the 2nd router knows not to route private addresses.

And in this configuration, a shared printer or file server on the
1st router or attached to Mac 1 or 2, would not be seen by Macs 3
and 4. And the reverse would be true for a shared printer or file
server on the 2nd router or Macs 3 and 4.

Private network addresses are of the form 10.*.*.* (used by Apple,
and generally of the form 10.0.1.*) or 192.168.*.* (generally used
by Linksys, D-Link, Belkin, Netgear, Buffalo, SMC, etc...).

And if router 1 and router 2 were the same manufacture, it is
likely that Mac 1 would be assigned the same private address as
Mac 3 and Mac 2 would be assigned the same private address as Mac
4. I mention this just so you might understand some of the
difficulties of having 2 active routers on your home network.

> >
> > > Now I'd like to add ethernet in several rooms of house in a manner you
> > > were describing above in your post a year ago.
> > >
> > > So, can I gather I run ethernet from the WAN Router to a Switch (or
> > > Hub?) in the basement?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > Or now that you have an Airport Extreme base station, it might
> > (and I stress the might) be possible to get a compatible WDS
> > device (Wireless Distribution System) and extend your network
> > without running ethernet cables. Something like an Airport
> > Express. BUT this is more expensive than just running an ethernet
> > cable.
>
> I have done that. Got a second AEBS which acts as a remote for a WDS.
> However, our house or neighborhood is "possessed" ;) ;) resulting in my
> wife's Mac which is attached wirelessly will often lose connection for
> 15-60 minutes in the afternoons. Can't figure out why. So to increase
> dependability and security I would like to return to wired connections
> for most work with wireless as an option. And we have to have some
> electrical wiring work done in the house so thought I'd try to add the
> ethernet wiring at the same time.

Some known things that interfere with WiFi. 2.4GHz cordless
phones. Either your own, or if you have neighbors very close by,
like an apartment building, Condo, city townhouse, or just homes
built very close together.

Microwave ovens have been known to interfere with WiFi.

Neighbors with their own WiFi base stations using the same channel
or a channel close to the one you are using. MacStumbler running
on a WiFi enabled Mac will tell you if there are any other WiFi
signals near you, the channel they are using, and the strength of
their signal.

A WiFi channel uses 5 channels worth of frequencies. This means
that if anyone else is using a nearby channel, it might overlap
with yours. This makes channels 1, 6, and 11 the best choice for
channels.

Bob Harris

> >
> > > And then from that Switch, or Hub, run ethernet to each room where I
> > > want ethernet connections?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > Then my new network would be:
> > >
> > > DSL Modem -> WAN Router (Netgear 314)
> > >
> > > WAN Router -> Mac and
> > > WAN Router -> Airport Extreme Base Station (with one or two Macs
> > > connected wirelessly) and
> > > WAN Router -> Switch
> > > Switch -> remote Macs or other switches to remote Macs
> > >
> > >
> > > As always, appreciate your tips.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Norm
> >
> > What your doing should work very well. I would uses switches if
> > that is not a problem, and if you are going to use a hub, then put
> > that at the end.
>
> I'll go with the switch suggestion. Thanks.
>
> >
> > If there is just one device at the end of a long run, then you can
> > just plug the Mac (or PC) into it. Only add a switch/hub if there
> > is more than one device.
> >
> > Bob Harris
>
>
> Thanks very much for the help.
.

Relevant Pages

  • 2503/WS-1103 intermittant ping
    ... I installed a 2503/WS-1103 which is a catalyst 3200 with a router ... blade installed on my network. ... BRI0 is administratively down, line protocol is down ... IP fast switching on the same interface is disabled ...
    (comp.dcom.sys.cisco)
  • Re: 2503/WS-1103 intermittant ping
    ... blade installed on my network. ... The router seems to perform OK except ... when I ping the ethernet connection, I only get back every other ping. ... BRI0 is administratively down, line protocol is down ...
    (comp.dcom.sys.cisco)
  • Re: Freebsd 5.1 <-> Win XP Networking problems
    ... Danny MacMillan wrote: ... >> from any ip number forming part of that network and from the netmask. ... > located external to my network it should send the packet to the router ... > (using the router's MAC address) instead of arp-ing for the MAC address ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • IGRP Routing Tables
    ... I installed a catalyst 3200 with a 2503/WS-1103 which is router ... blade installed on my network. ... I am using IGRP 10 as the routing protocol. ... ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial0 ...
    (comp.dcom.sys.cisco)
  • Re: re-setting router--MORE QUESTIONS...SIGH
    ... Unless your connection device is also a router, ... A MAC address is the ... "permanent" address that is 'burned' into any network device when it is ... enable some kind of wireless security. ...
    (alt.sys.pc-clone.dell)