On Mon, 06 Aug 2018 22:29:24 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
On Sun, 05 Aug 2018 20:15:38 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
On Sun, 05 Aug 2018 16:06:42 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
wrote:
I just had another thought... I suppose if I tried to connect the two
wired LANs together, it would take an ethernet port on each, so using
the 3 ports on the Hughesnet router would only give me one additional
port. Am I seeing this right? If that is the case, maybe adding the
new 5 port switch to the ASUS LAN would be the better way to go.
I'd appreciate comments.

My home system now accesses the internet via Hughesnet. I have the
Hughesnet router with an ethernet connection to my ASUS RT-AC66U
router. From there I am CAT5A wired to computers and TVs via wires
from both the ASUS and a 8 port Netgear switch (GS208). I have a few
handheld devices (phones, tablets) that connect wirelessly. Wireless
connectivity is such that there are two separate WiFi in place, from
the Hughesnet router, and from the ASUS router. For now, I'm using the
Hughesnet router only to connect ethernet into the ASUS, because
anything I connect wired (or wirelessly) into the Hughesnet router
doesn't see any device on the other LAN.
The question is, can these two separate LANs be joined so that any
device connected to either LAN sees devices in both LANs?
Another questions is basically do I have this system set up optimally,
or is there a better way to connect?
The reason for thinking about changing things is that I'm running out
of wired connections, using all 4 ports on the ASUS and 8 on the
Netgear switch, while 3 ports on the Hughesnet router are un-used. I
could add a 5-port switch alongside the Netgear switch, but adding it
only gains me a net 3 additional ports since I have to use one port on
the netgear to connect to one port on the 5 port switch. Using the 3
un-used ports on the Hughesnet router would be cleaner.
They make bigger boxes. 16 ports for $85.

https://www.amazon.ca/NETGEAR-Ethern...sl_6tivjumqs_e

It's $70 at Newegg.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...82E16833122822

"I don't know what the ultimate throughput capability is on the
switching fabric, but I am able to do two separate transfers
between four machines and get about 870mbit on each transfer
simultaneously, with 9K jumboframes. Seems like it can do pretty well."

But I don't know if that's the best answer possible.
I'm just surprised at the price. At
that price, you will easily pay more for the
cables to fully populate the box, than for the
box itself.

Maybe someone else could comment on the possibility of
running the Asus as an AP, so that (maybe) there
would be one subnet for the whole thing ? I'm not
good enough at networking to know whether this
is the right answer. I don't have nearly this much gear.

Wifi Wifi
/ / 16
Hughesnet router ------------ Asus (AP mode?) --- 16 port switch --/--

I presume the reason both Wifi are turned on, is
for "whole house coverage" ? The Asus has sufficient
antennas, that you might be able to get basement
or attic coverage by angling the antennas.

HTH,
Paul
Thanks for the suggestion on switching the ASUS to an AP. It got me
thinking.... do I still need it at all? The Hughesnet device has a
router built-in. I connected it the way I did (feeding into the ASUS
and using the ASUS as "my" router) because I was previously on a WISP
for an ISP, and had to have my own router. Now I can simply remove the
ASUS and use the Hughesnet router. I lose the 4 additional ports on
the ASUS, but as you suggested, I could replace the 8-port switch with
a 16 port. So the question now, is a 16 port "better" than simply
adding another 8-port (another 8-port is even cheaper than the price
you found for a 16 port).
WiFi coverage of the whole house isn't a problem, even it I eliminate
the ASUS.

I would think this would be a better setup.
As long as you're happy with the Wifi range and speed.

Wifi
/ 16
Hughesnet router ---- 16 port switch --/--

The 16 port switch is non-blocking and claims a "32Gbit"
fabric bandwidth. That means port 7 can talk to port 10 at 1Gb/sec
at the same time as port 6 can talk to port 11. Interfering
traffic patterns like that (on "lesser" equipment) might
be called "cross town traffic" patterns, if they were
to interfere with one another.

If you concatenate two 8 ports, I would think certain
port combinations would go through the "extension"
port, at the expense of the transfer characteristics.
If 7 talked to 10 and 6 talked to 11, they'd share
the extension port (as a bottleneck) and run at half-rate each.

Not being a big network guru, I understand some of these
sorts of products, have one or two "higher rate" ports,
which are used for extension purposes. To reduce the
blocking. As long as a single 8 port or single 16 port
is sufficient for your purposes, it's not likely to
get in your way. Making more complicated networks,
or sticking the Asus back in the picture, you'll
have to trace where the traffic goes, to figure
out where the bottleneck points are.

It would depend how many people operate
all these computing devices, what the odds
are of having complex traffic patterns or
high occupancy. If you were running a small
SOHO office, you'd buy the 16 port switch
as "cheap insurance" for your office. If
you're using all this gear by yourself,
maybe complex patterns don't come up all
that often. And simply chaining enough
gear serially to get the desired port
count, is good enough.

My usage pattern on my network here fits
that picture. I don't think I've ever had
a "cross town traffic" pattern on my stuff,
so I don't even know whether my setup is
non-blocking and fully capable. I assume it
is, but never even thought of testing for it.

Paul

Thanks for all the information. I'll probably go with the 16 port
switch, just to be sure. I can get by for a while with only the 8-port
because not everything is back in service, since Harvey repairs are
still incomplete.