A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

LAN Segregation



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 20th 16, 05:17 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default LAN Segregation

Home network.
Several PCs; Win 7 and Win XP.
Several NAS.
Several USB Drives.
Main ATT WiFi Router to ISP
Additional WiFi Router via CAT5 to main ATT for WiFi access in far area
of house.
All 1000Mb equipment.
All works as configured right now.

Some PCs have hardware WiFi switches and some have software WiFi switches.

Turning off network access at a PC seems problematic.
I did turn off one Win 7 PC, and I do not know how I did it, and it took
a while for me to get the network access back on the network and I don't
know how I did that. Why did I not know? It seems that clicking thing
do not react immediately so it was some time after I clicked buttons
that the network showed up.

The two main PCs have both Cat5 and Wifi as do the laptops.

The big question: What are the ways to configure the LAN and all the
devices connected such that the NAS can be easily isolated without
unplugging the NAS? I would like all PCs to have internet access and
maybe one PC with full access to the NAS.

I can add hardware, if necessary, to the LAN to make this work.
I think I have a slot inside a PC for something too.
But I would like to listed to all options to accomplish this.

Thank you.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
Ads
  #2  
Old May 20th 16, 06:05 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default LAN Segregation

On Fri, 20 May 2016 09:17:25 -0700, OG wrote:

Turning off network access at a PC seems problematic.
I did turn off one Win 7 PC, and I do not know how I did it, and it took
a while for me to get the network access back on the network and I don't
know how I did that. Why did I not know? It seems that clicking thing
do not react immediately so it was some time after I clicked buttons
that the network showed up.


If you simply Disable or Enable the network adapter, the result should be
nearly immediate, certainly within a few seconds. Go to Network and Sharing
Center, click on 'Change adapter settings', then right click on your network
adapter and select Disable or Enable, as desired.


The two main PCs have both Cat5 and Wifi as do the laptops.

The big question: What are the ways to configure the LAN and all the
devices connected such that the NAS can be easily isolated without
unplugging the NAS? I would like all PCs to have internet access and
maybe one PC with full access to the NAS.

I can add hardware, if necessary, to the LAN to make this work.
I think I have a slot inside a PC for something too.
But I would like to listed to all options to accomplish this.


The fastest and easiest way that I know of is to put the NAS on a different
subnet, then 'dual home' each of the PCs that are allowed to access it. The
cost is zero, but it might take a few minutes of your time if you aren't
familiar with the steps.

1. If the allowed PC is currently using DHCP to obtain its IP address (and
other networking info) from your router, you'll need to switch to a static
assignment. It would be helpful to know the DHCP range (scope) that your
router is allowed to use so that you can assign your PC an IP address
outside of that range. Once you've made a static IP address assignment,
netmask, and default gateway, as well as a primary and secondary DNS server,
your PC will continue on as usual, able to access the Internet as well as
the various other resources on your LAN.

2. Now add a second IP address from an entirely different subnet to the
allowed PC, stacked on the same NIC, and give it a proper netmask, such as
255.255.255.0. Leave the default gateway blank.

3. Connect to the NAS and change its IP address to one that's on the same
new subnet that you used in Step 2 above. Use the same netmask, as well, and
leave the default gateway blank. (The NAS will no longer have direct access
to/from the Internet, but you can map it on your PC to regain that access,
if necessary. You didn't mention if that's a requirement.)

The result is that your PC uses its LAN IP for everything, just as it did
before, -except- when you need to talk to the NAS, in which case your PC
will automatically switch and use the new IP address. Since no other PCs
have an address in the new subnet, they won't be able to see the NAS. Your
PC is able to use multiple IP addresses simultaneously, automatically
selecting the right one based on the destination address.

If you need more details, let me know what your current subnet is, probably
something like 192.168.1.0 with a netmask of 255.255.255.0 and a default
gateway of 192.168.1.1? Also, what's the current DHCP scope so that I can
help you pick an address outside of that range.

If you're familiar with what I'm proposing above, the whole thing will take
a couple of minutes, at most, to set up and after that the NAS will be
invisible to every other PC on your LAN but fully visible and functional to
your PC (and any others that you also set up this way). The cost is zero.


***

If you're determined to spend money, add a second NIC to your PC and put the
new address on that, but I'd definitely start with the zero cost option
since you already have everything you need to make it work.

The benefit of going to dual NICs is that each NIC will have its own
bandwidth, so if you're doing a massive transfer to/from the NAS your other
LAN and Internet activities won't be throttled due to limited bandwidth
available. That's the theory; in practice you can almost certainly do just
fine with a single dual-homed NIC.

--

Char Jackson
  #3  
Old May 21st 16, 02:20 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default LAN Segregation

OG wrote:
Home network.
Several PCs; Win 7 and Win XP.
Several NAS.
Several USB Drives.
Main ATT WiFi Router to ISP
Additional WiFi Router via CAT5 to main ATT for WiFi access in far area
of house.
All 1000Mb equipment.
All works as configured right now.

Some PCs have hardware WiFi switches and some have software WiFi switches.

Turning off network access at a PC seems problematic.
I did turn off one Win 7 PC, and I do not know how I did it, and it took
a while for me to get the network access back on the network and I don't
know how I did that. Why did I not know? It seems that clicking thing
do not react immediately so it was some time after I clicked buttons
that the network showed up.

The two main PCs have both Cat5 and Wifi as do the laptops.

The big question: What are the ways to configure the LAN and all the
devices connected such that the NAS can be easily isolated without
unplugging the NAS? I would like all PCs to have internet access and
maybe one PC with full access to the NAS.

I can add hardware, if necessary, to the LAN to make this work.
I think I have a slot inside a PC for something too.
But I would like to listed to all options to accomplish this.

Thank you.


I'm still working on building a diagram. And it isn't
all GbE, as the Arris is 10/100 on the LAN ports. Your
service is 50/5 or appears to be, so the 10/100 shouldn't
be a problem.

copper
ADSL ---- ARRIS NVG589 --- VOIP phone (RJ11)
50/5 VDSL2
802.11 ---//
B/G/N

10/100 --- IP Camera (Wired)
10/100 --- IP Camera (Wired)
10/100 --- Laptop
10/100 --- Asus GX-D1081 --- Living Room PC
GbE Switch --- Bedroom PC
---
--- NAS ???
--- NAS ???
---
--- R20000 ---// Dual band, 802.11a/b/g/n
Router
Used as Wifi extension???
1 Wan, 4 Lan, RJ45, GbE

Which devices use Wifi ?

Was there a Wifi extension in the picture (R20000 maybe?).

Are there NAS boxes ? Are the NAS boxes Wifi equipped
or just copper ?

Hanging the PC needing isolation off the R20000 might work.
As the R20000 RJ-45 connectors might be on a different
subnet than everything else feeding off the Arris. It might
depend on well, as to whether the LAN side of the R20000
connects to the Asus, or the WAN ("modem") on the R20000
connects to the Asus switch.

Paul
  #4  
Old May 21st 16, 08:54 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default LAN Segregation

PCs and laptop all have Cat5 and WiFi capability.

Yes the other WiFI router is set up with its own set of addresses and is
hardwired to the ATT. As configured it all plays OK

NAS are all Cat5.

Currently
---------- ROOM 1 BACK OF HOUSE ------
ISP -- ATT (internet + phone)
WiFI to Cam
Cat 5 to Switch1 1000Mb
WiFi to Laptop1
Cat 5 to PC (A) Multimedia Source
Cat 5 to NAS1
------- ROOM 2 FRONT OF HOUSE -----
Cat 5 to R20000 WiFi Router
WiFi to Cam
WiFi to Laptop2
Cat 5 to NAS2
------- ROOM 3 FRONT OF HOUSE -----
Cat 5 to Switch2 1000Mb
Cat 5 to PC (B) Viewer
Cat 5 to Laptop


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #5  
Old May 21st 16, 09:50 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default LAN Segregation

OG wrote:
PCs and laptop all have Cat5 and WiFi capability.

Yes the other WiFI router is set up with its own set of addresses and is
hardwired to the ATT. As configured it all plays OK

NAS are all Cat5.

Currently
---------- ROOM 1 BACK OF HOUSE ------
ISP -- ATT (internet + phone)
WiFI to Cam
Cat 5 to Switch1 1000Mb
WiFi to Laptop1
Cat 5 to PC (A) Multimedia Source
Cat 5 to NAS1
------- ROOM 2 FRONT OF HOUSE -----
Cat 5 to R20000 WiFi Router
WiFi to Cam
WiFi to Laptop2
Cat 5 to NAS2
------- ROOM 3 FRONT OF HOUSE -----
Cat 5 to Switch2 1000Mb
Cat 5 to PC (B) Viewer
Cat 5 to Laptop


It looks to me, like the NVG589 10/100 will factor
into a lot of the communications paths. It
looks like the emphasis started primarily
as "ease of wiring".

Do you already experience some combinations
that don't work at all ? Like PC (A) to NAS2 ?

Paul
  #6  
Old May 21st 16, 11:50 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default LAN Segregation

Paul wrote:
OG wrote:
PCs and laptop all have Cat5 and WiFi capability.

Yes the other WiFI router is set up with its own set of addresses and
is hardwired to the ATT. As configured it all plays OK

NAS are all Cat5.

Currently
---------- ROOM 1 BACK OF HOUSE ------
ISP -- ATT (internet + phone)
WiFI to Cam
Cat 5 to Switch1 1000Mb
WiFi to Laptop1
Cat 5 to PC (A) Multimedia Source
Cat 5 to NAS1
------- ROOM 2 FRONT OF HOUSE -----
Cat 5 to R20000 WiFi Router
WiFi to Cam
WiFi to Laptop2
Cat 5 to NAS2
------- ROOM 3 FRONT OF HOUSE -----
Cat 5 to Switch2 1000Mb
Cat 5 to PC (B) Viewer
Cat 5 to Laptop


It looks to me, like the NVG589 10/100 will factor
into a lot of the communications paths. It
looks like the emphasis started primarily
as "ease of wiring".

Do you already experience some combinations
that don't work at all ? Like PC (A) to NAS2 ?

Paul


Not any that, just the biggest problem of the ATT flooding the LAN so I
cannot get TV files from (a) to (B) to play without stuttering.
Even doing a copy takes twice as long as the show runs.
Still do not know why that i happening.

So if I disconnect the ATT from the switch (that is why it is wired that
way) I get full LAN bandwidth for what I want to do and the main Cam is
still running.

I want to configure it all such that a PC in Room B can surf while the
NAS all over are isolated. But since the NASes are in different rooms
it is not simple to isolate them. NASes and other stuff are on
different UPS for isolating from power hiccups.





--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #7  
Old May 22nd 16, 09:06 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default LAN Segregation

OG wrote:
Paul wrote:
OG wrote:
PCs and laptop all have Cat5 and WiFi capability.

Yes the other WiFI router is set up with its own set of addresses and
is hardwired to the ATT. As configured it all plays OK

NAS are all Cat5.

Currently
---------- ROOM 1 BACK OF HOUSE ------
ISP -- ATT (internet + phone)
WiFI to Cam
Cat 5 to Switch1 1000Mb
WiFi to Laptop1
Cat 5 to PC (A) Multimedia Source
Cat 5 to NAS1
------- ROOM 2 FRONT OF HOUSE -----
Cat 5 to R20000 WiFi Router
WiFi to Cam
WiFi to Laptop2
Cat 5 to NAS2
------- ROOM 3 FRONT OF HOUSE -----
Cat 5 to Switch2 1000Mb
Cat 5 to PC (B) Viewer
Cat 5 to Laptop


It looks to me, like the NVG589 10/100 will factor
into a lot of the communications paths. It
looks like the emphasis started primarily
as "ease of wiring".

Do you already experience some combinations
that don't work at all ? Like PC (A) to NAS2 ?

Paul


Not any that, just the biggest problem of the ATT flooding the LAN so I
cannot get TV files from (a) to (B) to play without stuttering.
Even doing a copy takes twice as long as the show runs.
Still do not know why that i happening.

So if I disconnect the ATT from the switch (that is why it is wired that
way) I get full LAN bandwidth for what I want to do and the main Cam is
still running.

I want to configure it all such that a PC in Room B can surf while the
NAS all over are isolated. But since the NASes are in different rooms
it is not simple to isolate them. NASes and other stuff are on
different UPS for isolating from power hiccups.


Your (A) to (B) path goes through the ATT box.
The LEDs on the ATT box should flash, during
a transfer there. You've put the switch in
ROOM 1 and the switch in ROOM 3, on two
wired ports of the ATT 10/100 box. The ATT
doesn't route that traffic - it's likely
to be switching it at wire speed. But the
speed is only 100BT (12.5MB/sec).

I'm not a networking expert like Char, so maybe
he can propose the simplest re-jigging of the
boxen to achieve the isolation. Since you have
two routers, I might try to do it with the
routers, relying on the unroutable 182.168.x.x
subnets. Make one subnet 192.168.1.x and the
other 192.168.2.x, so that the routers won't
route between them. But then again, I'd be
making better usage of the 8 port GbE
switch, to get better transfer bandwidth
where it is actually needed. Then throw a router
in the way for isolation (so traffic can go to
the Internet, but not to any other subnets).

Paul
  #8  
Old May 22nd 16, 03:39 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default LAN Segregation

Paul wrote:
OG wrote:
Paul wrote:
OG wrote:
PCs and laptop all have Cat5 and WiFi capability.
Yes the other WiFI router is set up with its own set of addresses and
is hardwired to the ATT. As configured it all plays OK NAS are all Cat5.
Currently
---------- ROOM 1 BACK OF HOUSE ------
ISP -- ATT (internet + phone)
WiFI to Cam
Cat 5 to Switch1 1000Mb
WiFi to Laptop1
Cat 5 to PC (A) Multimedia Source
Cat 5 to NAS1
------- ROOM 2 FRONT OF HOUSE -----
Cat 5 to R20000 WiFi Router
WiFi to Cam
WiFi to Laptop2
Cat 5 to NAS2
------- ROOM 3 FRONT OF HOUSE -----
Cat 5 to Switch2 1000Mb
Cat 5 to PC (B) Viewer
Cat 5 to Laptop
It looks to me, like the NVG589 10/100 will factor
into a lot of the communications paths. It
looks like the emphasis started primarily
as "ease of wiring".
Do you already experience some combinations
that don't work at all ? Like PC (A) to NAS2 ?
Paul
Not any that, just the biggest problem of the ATT flooding the LAN so
I cannot get TV files from (a) to (B) to play without stuttering.
Even doing a copy takes twice as long as the show runs.
Still do not know why that i happening.
So if I disconnect the ATT from the switch (that is why it is wired
that way) I get full LAN bandwidth for what I want to do and the main
Cam is still running.
I want to configure it all such that a PC in Room B can surf while the
NAS all over are isolated. But since the NASes are in different rooms
it is not simple to isolate them. NASes and other stuff are on
different UPS for isolating from power hiccups.

Your (A) to (B) path goes through the ATT box.
The LEDs on the ATT box should flash, during
a transfer there. You've put the switch in
ROOM 1 and the switch in ROOM 3, on two
wired ports of the ATT 10/100 box. The ATT
doesn't route that traffic - it's likely
to be switching it at wire speed. But the
speed is only 100BT (12.5MB/sec).

I'm not a networking expert like Char, so maybe
he can propose the simplest re-jigging of the
boxen to achieve the isolation. Since you have
two routers, I might try to do it with the
routers, relying on the unroutable 182.168.x.x
subnets. Make one subnet 192.168.1.x and the
other 192.168.2.x, so that the routers won't
route between them. But then again, I'd be
making better usage of the 8 port GbE
switch, to get better transfer bandwidth
where it is actually needed. Then throw a router
in the way for isolation (so traffic can go to
the Internet, but not to any other subnets).

Paul


Maybe not reading my diagram correctly?

Only the Internet goes through the ATT Box then to Switch1.
There are no other connections on ATT. Yes there is also WiFi on ATT
but nothing on the LAN acceses that until an application is run; that
traffic goes out to ISP so can view on SmartPhone.

The (A) (B) traffic goes:
(A) to Cat5 to Switch1 To Cat5 to Switch2 to (B)

Stuff from (A) and (B) may go ATT via Switch1 so would not the switch
tend to isolate the ATT from LAN traffic?


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #9  
Old May 22nd 16, 04:50 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default LAN Segregation

OG wrote:


Maybe not reading my diagram correctly?

Only the Internet goes through the ATT Box then to Switch1.
There are no other connections on ATT. Yes there is also WiFi on ATT
but nothing on the LAN acceses that until an application is run; that
traffic goes out to ISP so can view on SmartPhone.

The (A) (B) traffic goes:
(A) to Cat5 to Switch1 To Cat5 to Switch2 to (B)

Stuff from (A) and (B) may go ATT via Switch1 so would not the switch
tend to isolate the ATT from LAN traffic?


ATT ----
(10/100 ----
----
---- Switch1 ----
(GbE) ----
----
----
----
----
---- Switch2 (or R20000?) ----
(GbE) ----
----
----

Each dotted line in the diagram is an RJ45.

Paul
  #10  
Old May 23rd 16, 07:35 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default LAN Segregation

On Sun, 22 May 2016 04:06:18 -0400, Paul wrote:

I'm not a networking expert like Char, so maybe
he can propose the simplest re-jigging of the
boxen to achieve the isolation.


I already suggested an easy way to achieve what he wanted to do, but so far
he didn't pick up on it.

--

Char Jackson
  #11  
Old May 23rd 16, 10:59 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default LAN Segregation

Char Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2016 04:06:18 -0400, Paul wrote:

I'm not a networking expert like Char, so maybe
he can propose the simplest re-jigging of the
boxen to achieve the isolation.


I already suggested an easy way to achieve what he wanted to do, but so far
he didn't pick up on it.


I'm not 100% positive this network is physically set
up as well as it could be. That's why I'm "relentless"
with the request for a network diagram. Presumably
isolation is easier with some setups than with others.

There are two routers in the diagram. Not sure if there
is one switch or two. It might be router - switch - router
for example.

*******

When I do my wiring here, one room has all the networking
equipment, and wires (if they are ever necessary) radiate
away from that room. Then I can select whatever cascade
of boxen I want. For example, if I run the laptop in
the kitchen, I run a wire up the hallway to the kitchen
as a temporary solution. The laptop has Wifi, but no other
gear in the house has Wifi, so doing it with Wifi is not
an option. If some day, a network box happens to have Wifi,
it might happen (an actual Wifi connection).

My modem/router, is "entirely floating" in terms of electrical
ground (which is why it happens to be so noise sensitive
to thru-noise on the AC power). If it had Wifi inside the
box, I don't know what that would do to antenna efficiency.
For example, if that box had a TTL level serial port, I'd
have to use an optoisolator to connect to the port, so the
(lack of) ground doesn't get upset.

Paul
  #12  
Old May 23rd 16, 04:22 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default LAN Segregation

On Mon, 23 May 2016 05:59:33 -0400, Paul wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2016 04:06:18 -0400, Paul wrote:

I'm not a networking expert like Char, so maybe
he can propose the simplest re-jigging of the
boxen to achieve the isolation.


I already suggested an easy way to achieve what he wanted to do, but so far
he didn't pick up on it.


I'm not 100% positive this network is physically set
up as well as it could be.


I have a nagging feeling that his second 'router' is actually set up as a
router, and not as an access point, and if so, that's usually undesirable. I
don't know how it's set up, nor do I know how he intended to set it up. So
that part bothers me a bit. The rest of his LAN seems to be switched, so
that's very straightforward, in theory at least.

Oh, the other thing that bothers me is that he says intraLAN transfers have
been known to generate large amounts of WAN traffic, which if true would
seem to indicate a misconfiguration. I've done that before, actually. Back
in the mid-90's, before NAT routers were common and cable ISPs were handing
out 3 or 5 or more routable IPs, if you did a file transfer from one LAN
host to another the traffic actually had to go out to the ISP first hop,
then back, traversing the cable modem twice. These days, with everything
behind a router, that kind of thing should never be the case anymore, so I
don't know what he's doing to generate WAN traffic when he does transfers
within the LAN.

If I'm working with an actual customer on something like this, I start with
an equipment inventory. For each piece of equipment, I want to know its IP
address, network mask, and default gateway. Next, I want to know about the
physical connectivity. From there, I can build a map and begin to speak with
authority on where the issues are. I see that you're doing some of the same,
which is good.


That's why I'm "relentless"
with the request for a network diagram. Presumably
isolation is easier with some setups than with others.

There are two routers in the diagram. Not sure if there
is one switch or two. It might be router - switch - router
for example.

*******

When I do my wiring here, one room has all the networking
equipment, and wires (if they are ever necessary) radiate
away from that room. Then I can select whatever cascade
of boxen I want.


Same here. At my last house, all of the cables entered the house in the
corner of my basement office, so it made sense to 'home run' everything in
the house back to that area. As a result, that's where the cable modem,
router, and switches were located.

At my current house, the builder had everything going to an upstairs closet,
and while I liked the fact that he was thinking, I didn't like his choice of
location, so I've since moved everything to my office. Still upstairs, but
diagonally all the way across to the other end of the house. Now everything
radiates out from there. There are additional switches in key locations
around the house, in areas where I simply needed more Ethernet ports, but
there are no additional routers anywhere. I run multiple subnets over the
same physical media, isolating certain things from certain other things, so
OG's request to isolate his NAS falls right in line with how I do it here.


--

Char Jackson
  #13  
Old May 23rd 16, 09:43 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default LAN Segregation

LEGEND
-- Internet
++ WiFi
== Cat5

---------- ROOM 1 BACK OF HOUSE ------
ISP -- ATT (internet + phone)
ATT++Cam1
ATT++Laptop1
ATT==Switch1 1000Mb
Switch1===PC (A) Multimedia Source
Switch1==NAS1
------- ROOM 2 FRONT OF HOUSE -----
Switch1==R20000 WiFi Router
R20000++Cam2
R20000++Laptop2
R20000==NAS2
------- ROOM 3 FRONT OF HOUSE -----
R20000==Switch2 1000Mb
Switch2== PC (B) Viewer
Switch2== Laptop3


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #14  
Old May 24th 16, 10:16 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default LAN Segregation

OG wrote:
LEGEND
-- Internet
++ WiFi
== Cat5

---------- ROOM 1 BACK OF HOUSE ------
ISP -- ATT (internet + phone)
ATT++Cam1
ATT++Laptop1
ATT==Switch1 1000Mb
Switch1===PC (A) Multimedia Source
Switch1==NAS1
------- ROOM 2 FRONT OF HOUSE -----
Switch1==R20000 WiFi Router
R20000++Cam2
R20000++Laptop2
R20000==NAS2
------- ROOM 3 FRONT OF HOUSE -----
R20000==Switch2 1000Mb
Switch2== PC (B) Viewer
Switch2== Laptop3


Char presented an isolation method near the beginning of the thread.

http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi...1%404ax.com%3E

I'm still trying to figure out, how comms from (B)
to (A), are going through the ATT 10/100 port.
The traffic does appear to go through the
wired R20000 ports. But doesn't have to
touch the ATT, unless some funky routing
is going on which isn't shown in the picture.

switch --- PC (A)
--- R20000 --- switch --- PC(B)

I wonder if the Wifi on PC (A) and PC (B),
the radio on those is switched off ?

Paul
  #15  
Old May 24th 16, 03:23 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default LAN Segregation

Paul wrote:
OG wrote:
LEGEND
-- Internet
++ WiFi
== Cat5

---------- ROOM 1 BACK OF HOUSE ------
ISP -- ATT (internet + phone)
ATT++Cam1
ATT++Laptop1
ATT==Switch1 1000Mb
Switch1===PC (A) Multimedia Source
Switch1==NAS1
------- ROOM 2 FRONT OF HOUSE -----
Switch1==R20000 WiFi Router
R20000++Cam2
R20000++Laptop2
R20000==NAS2
------- ROOM 3 FRONT OF HOUSE -----
R20000==Switch2 1000Mb
Switch2== PC (B) Viewer
Switch2== Laptop3


Char presented an isolation method near the beginning of the thread.

http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi...1%404ax.com%3E


I'm still trying to figure out, how comms from (B)
to (A), are going through the ATT 10/100 port.
The traffic does appear to go through the
wired R20000 ports. But doesn't have to
touch the ATT, unless some funky routing
is going on which isn't shown in the picture.

switch --- PC (A)
--- R20000 --- switch --- PC(B)

I wonder if the Wifi on PC (A) and PC (B),
the radio on those is switched off ?

Paul


The TV files are housed on (A) and viewed on (B); ATT not involved in
that traffic directly (but because it is on the LAN it sees it? Since
it is a 10/100 , as someone suggested in a post, device does that slow
the overall LAN traffic?)
Something is flooding the LAN with data and going to or from the ATT;
this traffic kills the TV file viewing so if I unplug the ATT Cat5 to
the rest of the LAN the LAN speed goes to full speed. Now this does not
happen all the time when watching the TV files. But when it does it
kills viewing. I have tried killing apps on the viewing PC (B) like NAS
apps but got inconsistent results.

WiFi on all devices is active and used.
The IP address range is set to not overlap on the ATT and R20000.
R20000 only acts as WiFi at that end of the house and as a Cat5 router.


I am not familiar with the posted isolation suggestion and need to study
it. Too much new terminology. My pea brain does not think I will
understand it.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.