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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
LAN question, can I "merge" 2 separate LANs?
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
LAN question, can I "merge" 2 separate LANs?
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
LAN question, can I "merge" 2 separate LANs?
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
LAN question, can I "merge" 2 separate LANs?
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
LAN question, can I "merge" 2 separate LANs?
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
LAN question, can I "merge" 2 separate LANs?
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
LAN question, can I "merge" 2 separate LANs?
On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 11:15:01 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
wrote: 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. If you remove the Asus router from the picture (as a redundant router), you have a couple of options regarding its reuse as a Gigabit switch or as an access point, or as both a switch and an AP. You'll only gain two LAN ports because you'll use one LAN port on the HughesNet router and one LAN port on the Asus, but the additional AP might still be desirable, depending on your WiFi coverage situation. To use the Asus as a switch and/or additional AP, you'll connect it to the HughesNet router via one of its LAN ports, (its WAN port will be unused), and you'll need to disable its DHCP function so it doesn't try to assign IPs to clients. Disable the WiFi function if you're only going to use it as a switch. Related note: if the switch ports on the HughesNet router are only 100 Megabit, you'll want to use only one LAN port on that router as a downlink to a Gigabit switch so that your intraLAN comms aren't limited to 100Mb. For quite a while now, PC network interfaces have been Gigabit, so interconnecting everything through a 100Mb switch will step everything down to the lower speed. All of your wired PCs should connect to one or more Gigabit switches, and that switch should have one uplink to the slower (if true) HughesNet switch. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
LAN question, can I "merge" 2 separate LANs?
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:55:20 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote: On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 11:15:01 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir wrote: 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. If you remove the Asus router from the picture (as a redundant router), you have a couple of options regarding its reuse as a Gigabit switch or as an access point, or as both a switch and an AP. You'll only gain two LAN ports because you'll use one LAN port on the HughesNet router and one LAN port on the Asus, but the additional AP might still be desirable, depending on your WiFi coverage situation. To use the Asus as a switch and/or additional AP, you'll connect it to the HughesNet router via one of its LAN ports, (its WAN port will be unused), and you'll need to disable its DHCP function so it doesn't try to assign IPs to clients. Disable the WiFi function if you're only going to use it as a switch. Related note: if the switch ports on the HughesNet router are only 100 Megabit, you'll want to use only one LAN port on that router as a downlink to a Gigabit switch so that your intraLAN comms aren't limited to 100Mb. For quite a while now, PC network interfaces have been Gigabit, so interconnecting everything through a 100Mb switch will step everything down to the lower speed. All of your wired PCs should connect to one or more Gigabit switches, and that switch should have one uplink to the slower (if true) HughesNet switch. Good point... I hadn't thought of that, but as it turns out, that's how I configured it. I changed the way I use the ASUS router.... I connected one cat 5 from the Hughesnet to the ASUS LAN input, and then all the TVs and DVRs feeding from the ASUS. The reasoning behind this is a bit convoluted.... MY Hughesnet limit is 50 GB/month. That seems to be just about right, but if I exceed 50 the speed is greatly reduced (from about 40 Mbps to less than 1). So as I near the limit, I can tether a cell phone to the ASUS and disconnect it from the Hughesnet system entirely, then stream content using the cell phone. I have 6 GB cell data which I rarely use, so I can get an additional 3 to 4 hours of streaming video this way. Also, having the TVs on a "different" LAN hasn't been a problem. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Raid aka Dustin "DuckFarter" Cook aka Diesel-Dum: "If you value yourfamily...stop..." | Nathan Hale | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | January 28th 17 04:26 AM |
USB bootable maker: Diff between "HP Drive Key Boot Utility" and "HP USB Disk Storage Format Tool"? | Jason Stacy | Storage (alternative) | 1 | April 21st 09 01:14 AM |
"true life" vs. "anti-glare" of Vostro 1500: What are the brightness & contrast ratios??? | Thomas G. Marshall | Dell Computers | 1 | April 11th 08 10:47 PM |
Downside of changing "Max frames to render ahead"/"Prerender Limit" to 1/0? | Jeremy Reaban | Nvidia Videocards | 2 | March 31st 06 04:24 AM |