Dumb Question, how would I do this? (Network Layout)

Lino

Lino

I am back
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
13,785
Reaction score
56
Now, if I wanted to design a network. With the following:

Single building with 4 floors.
Each floor has its own network.
On each floor there are 350 pcs.
There is a server on each floor etc.

They all have to be connected to each and then eventually connect to a main server etc.

Do you guys think this would work out?

On each floor, all of the pc's are connected using a star topology.

Could I use a router on each level so that all the pc's would be able to connect to the other floors?

Does all that sound right or am I missing something?

Would the following type of IP address per a floor with the following subnet mask be suitable? (I think my calculations were correct)

IP (of cause would use DHCP per each floor)

10.10.10.1
10.10.10.255

With a subnet mask of

255.255.254.0

I assume that should give me about 510 usable IPs?
 
Last edited:
Yes, sounds right. Obviously you would be using multiple routers on each floor, and then one of them would have a cable connecting to the floor above and so forth. Is there a high traffic volume? Would be better to use gigabit connections if you can to avoid congestion.
 
It seems that I have to make it affordable. So it would probably end up being 10 Base -T; setup.

Would I also need gateways?
 
Then I could have one large switch on each floor, which could connect to the server on the floor. Then use the server as a router etc?
 
erm

try to get 100baseT or at least a proper CAT5e (gigabit) setup (switches)....

350pcs per floor is GOING TO KILL 10baseT and even 100mips
 
Linoman said:
Then I could have one large switch on each floor, which could connect to the server on the floor. Then use the server as a router etc?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is how I have my office set up... though on a much smaller scale.

Three floors... each floor with its own router and one cable jumping through the wall to the floor above into that router.

One ADSL connection into one of the routers is automatically detected as the gateway by Windows XP.
 
[OUPA]MrNutz;1943267 said:
erm

try to get 100baseT or at least a proper CAT5e (gigabit) setup (switches)....

350pcs per floor is GOING TO KILL 10baseT and even 100mips
Click to expand...

Ja, that was what I was getting at... depending on your traffic type it will congest at the cables jumping floors and at the gateway.

Gigabit is going to be more expensive but kinda unavoidable for this size set-up.
 
How much traffic is flowing between the floors? Whats the network for & whats going down on the server?

Try to go for a gigabit network if you can....even if most of the NICs are still 100NICs a gigabit network will work out better.

ETA: Already covered above.

Gigabit switches aren't that expensive anymore.
 
Last edited:
With 1,400 computers and 4 servers and your client cannot afford/want to spend the money on a decent network backbone ?

Personally I would look at a combination of fibre and gigabit. Using anything lower specced will only cause you a lot of grief.
 
I have a VERY similar setup at on of my clients. 3 Floors, +-100 users per floor. 100BaseT to the user from each floor switch. Gigabit fibre to the basement server room into a HP Core Switch, 1000BaseT into each server from the core switch. Mixed 1mb uncapped DSL and 2mb Diginet for Internet access.

Using routers will just complicat your life. Get good quality switches and let them route as necessary. Works a charm.
 
Linoman said:
Now, if I wanted to design a network. With the following:

Single building with 4 floors.
Each floor has its own network.
On each floor there are 350 pcs.
There is a server on each floor etc.

They all have to be connected to each and then eventually connect to a main server etc.

Do you guys think this would work out?

On each floor, all of the pc's are connected using a star topology.

Could I use a router on each level so that all the pc's would be able to connect to the other floors?

Does all that sound right or am I missing something?

Would the following type of IP address per a floor with the following subnet mask be suitable? (I think my calculations were correct)

IP (of cause would use DHCP per each floor)

10.10.10.1
10.10.10.255

With a subnet mask of

255.255.254.0

I assume that should give me about 510 usable IPs?
Click to expand...

This sounds like an exercise straight out of the N+ theory book lol. Which I guess it is, based on your other thread. Unfortunately, most of that is now quite old. 10BaseT will not support the volume of 350 computers per network, not to mention that unless you force 10MBps on the network card, it will run at 100MBps. Between each floor, the connection should be gigabit, fibre or copper is fine, depending on interference though.

Your IP calculations are correct :)
 
Asha'man X said:
This sounds like an exercise straight out of the N+ theory book lol. Which I guess it is, based on your other thread. Unfortunately, most of that is now quite old. 10BaseT will not support the volume of 350 computers per network, not to mention that unless you force 10MBps on the network card, it will run at 100MBps. Between each floor, the connection should be gigabit, fibre or copper is fine, depending on interference though.

Your IP calculations are correct :)
Click to expand...

Hey man yes, you caught me:D. I presume that I could just use a router to connect all the floors with each other. Also I presume that the router would have two network cards. And each would have to be configured on the network it is going to support etc.

Could I then rather use 1000 Base-T?

Just want to say thanks to everyone, your input is much appreciated.

Something I am very confused about, is why do I need a gateway if I am going to use a router?
 
Last edited:
Personally, if all pc's will be used at the same time, I would use more than one subnet per floor to make the broadcast domain smaller.

Instead of routers, layer3 switches should work fine.
 
Linoman said:
Hey man yes, you caught me:D. I presume that I could just use a router to connect all the floors with each other. Also I presume that the router would have two network cards. And each would have to be configured on the network it is going to support etc.

Could I then rather use 1000 Base-T?

Just want to say thanks to everyone, your input is much appreciated.

Something I am very confused about, is why do I need a gateway if I am going to use a router?
Click to expand...

Lol, I thought the example rang a bell in my head.

To answer your questions, a router will have 2 network interfaces, sometimes more even. What you presumes is correct about the routers yes. And yes, you most surely would want to use 1000 Base T. It may not be the cheapest (which was part of the exercise I believe according to your one post), but in this day and age, it's not exactly expensive either. When that N+ book was written, it was rare and expensive.

Concerning gateways, it is confusing I agree. Technically, a gateway and router are the same thing, but I once read that a gateway could also be something else that inter connected a mainframe and lan for example. However, I have no proof of where I read that, so ignore it.

In TCP/IP terms, gateway is still used to signify router. Example being the "Default Gateway" setting under Windows. What you are really actually setting is the address of the router on the network.

I think part of the confusion comes from the idea that routers were generally meant to be used internally on networks only, and a "gateway" was the actual connection out to the internet. Over the years the terminology got blended together, so it's not a major issue anymore.

Hope this helps and makes some sense :)
 
Asha'man X said:
Lol, I thought the example rang a bell in my head.

To answer your questions, a router will have 2 network interfaces, sometimes more even. What you presumes is correct about the routers yes. And yes, you most surely would want to use 1000 Base T. It may not be the cheapest (which was part of the exercise I believe according to your one post), but in this day and age, it's not exactly expensive either. When that N+ book was written, it was rare and expensive.

Concerning gateways, it is confusing I agree. Technically, a gateway and router are the same thing, but I once read that a gateway could also be something else that inter connected a mainframe and lan for example. However, I have no proof of where I read that, so ignore it.

In TCP/IP terms, gateway is still used to signify router. Example being the "Default Gateway" setting under Windows. What you are really actually setting is the address of the router on the network.

I think part of the confusion comes from the idea that routers were generally meant to be used internally on networks only, and a "gateway" was the actual connection out to the internet. Over the years the terminology got blended together, so it's not a major issue anymore.

Hope this helps and makes some sense :)
Click to expand...

Thank you very much, that helped me quite a lot. You guys will be happy to know thanks to all the help in both threads I passed my N+ practical exam. Only the theory left:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X