26 Feb
2006
26 Feb
'06
5:19 p.m.
Hi folks,
I did attempt a google for this but did not know what search term would
actually pull up a meaningful result for this.
Apparatus/Equipment.
a) SMC wireless dsl router (3 port)
b) three 8 port switches, (dlink, dax, smc)
Setup:
4 ports in each are used to connect to various PCs.
1 port used up to connect to the wireless router.
Problem:
I have had issues with routers where frequent reseting is required.
So to prevent the entire internal network going down because of a bad
router, I decided to make the connections redundant.
So connected Port 6 of dlink to port 6 of Dax.
Port 7 of dlink to port 6 of smc.
Port 7 of dax to port 7 of smc
with the assumption that even if the router fails, i'l have
uninterrupted access.
But this was not to be. Things got messed up, despite enabled
connections, machines would not ping each other or the router.
Then finally removed the links from Switch 1 and 2 to the router and
also the connection from dax to smc and it started working fine.
So what got messed up in the above setup? I am thinking its something
to do with conflicts but not convinced as to why there would be a
conflict?
Can anyone throw some light on this?
thanks
abhi
***********************************************************************
According to the theory of aerodynamics, a bumble bee cannot fly.
A bumble bee is not aware of this theory and so it decides to fly anyway.
***********************************************************************
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
27 Feb
27 Feb
2:43 p.m.
Abhishek Daga wrote:
Setup: 4 ports in each are used to connect to various
PCs. 1 port
used up to connect to the wireless router.
Problem: I have had issues with routers where frequent reseting is
required. So to prevent the entire internal network going down
because of a bad router, I decided to make the connections redundant.
So connected Port 6 of dlink to port 6 of Dax. Port 7 of dlink to
port 6 of smc. Port 7 of dax to port 7 of smc with the assumption
that even if the router fails, i'l have uninterrupted access.
But this was not to be. Things got messed up, despite enabled
connections, machines would not ping each other or the router.
Are you sure you can have parallel network routing, like between
switches as well as an extra route through the router? How will the
packets flow?
It may be irrelavant but did you use straight and cross cable
conventions for the respective devices?
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
5:31 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 09:19 -0800, Abhishek Daga wrote:
Hi folks,
I did attempt a google for this but did not know what search term would
actually pull up a meaningful result for this.
I tried http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=ethernet%2Bstandards
to read up on the basics.
Setup:
4 ports in each are used to connect to various PCs.
1 port used up to connect to the wireless router.
Problem:
I have had issues with routers where frequent reseting is required.
So to prevent the entire internal network going down because of a bad
router, I decided to make the connections redundant.
So connected Port 6 of dlink to port 6 of Dax.
Port 7 of dlink to port 6 of smc.
Port 7 of dax to port 7 of smc
with the assumption that even if the router fails, i'l have
uninterrupted access.
I think one can only cascade unmanaged hubs/switches. The above topology
was causing confusion within the switches, especially the wireless
router (connected to all three switches) as to which port of the two
ports to send the ethernet frame. I think only intelligent hub/switches
can figure out paths for transmission, reserving the others for fail
overs.
--
Arun Khan
Linux is like a wigwam - no gates, no windows, apache inside
6:20 p.m.
On 2/27/06, Arun K. Khan <knura(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I think one can only cascade unmanaged hubs/switches.
The above topology
was causing confusion within the switches, especially the wireless
router (connected to all three switches) as to which port of the two
ports to send the ethernet frame. I think only intelligent hub/switches
can figure out paths for transmission, reserving the others for fail
overs.
I think the OPs terminology is a bit confusing as well. Is he using
switches? What kind of switches is he using? or is he using routers?
again what kind? whats the model no? and why is he required to
frequently reboot them?
---
Dinesh A. Joshi
7:22 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 23:50 +0530, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
On 2/27/06, Arun K. Khan <knura(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
Agree with your last question about rebooting the router - why?
As for the topology, I understood what the OP was trying to say. This
is what I understood.
WAN
|
|
====== A (DSL router w/WLAN and 3 wired port switch)
========== B (8 wired port switch)
========== C (8 wired port switch)
========== D (8 port switch)
(1) A - is connected to B, C, and D
(2) B - is connected to C and A as in (1)
(3) C - is connected to D and A as in (1)
(4) D - is connected to B and A as in (1)
The only thing that was not clear to me was whether he is using
intelligent switches or vanilla unmanaged switches. From the little I
read about ethernet topology, I don't think above is kosher and that is
why things were not working.
B, C, and D cascaded with any _one_ of them connected to A is OK. That
way when A is hosed at least the PCs on the LAN can communicate - which
is what the OP finally did IIRC.
--
Arun Khan
Linux is like a wigwam - no gates, no windows, apache inside
I think one can only cascade unmanaged
hubs/switches. The above topology
was causing confusion within the switches, especially the wireless
router (connected to all three switches) as to which port of the two
ports to send the ethernet frame. I think only intelligent hub/switches
can figure out paths for transmission, reserving the others for fail
overs.
I think the OPs terminology is a bit confusing as well. Is he using
switches? What kind of switches is he using? or is he using routers?
again what kind? whats the model no? and why is he required to
frequently reboot them? 
8:37 p.m.
New subject: [ot][hardware] making redundant connections betweenswitches and a router
So connected Port 6 of dlink to port 6 of Dax.
Port 7 of dlink to port 6 of smc.
Port 7 of dax to port 7 of smc
It seems that the way you have connected the switches, you are creating a
loop,
which can result in "broadcast storms" / packets looping around forever.
Search for info on spanning tree protocol, and see if this is part of your
problem.
Regards
Shahed,
28 Feb
28 Feb
3:05 a.m.
--- "Arun K. Khan" <knura(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 23:50 +0530, Dinesh Joshi
wrote:
To answer your questions.
When I said, switches I meant switches. The standard 8 port ones from
Dlink/SMC which come for 1050-1800 Rs.
Router is a 802.11b Wireless ADSL Router with 3 port switch built in.
Why Rebooting:
I have used 3-4 wireless adsl routers in the past 4-5 years from
various companies and have observed that from time to time my
connectivity is lost. (both wireless and wired). This is resolved by
restarting the router. Not an exact science, but the routers I have
seen are more prone to breakdowns than the switches and therefore the
need to redundancy.
Since earlier, the 3 switches were talking to each other via the
router, a failure in the router would mean LAN down too till someone
powers down the router and powers it up again.
Maybe it's a firmware problem or maybe I was plain unlucky with the
pieces I had. But thats what it was.
Abhi
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I think the OPs terminology is a bit confusing as
well. Is he using
switches? What kind of switches is he using? or is he using
routers?
again what kind? whats the model no? and why is
he required to
frequently reboot them?
Agree with your last question about rebooting the router - why? 
5:52 a.m.
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 8:35 am, Abhishek Daga wrote:
To answer your questions.
When I said, switches I meant switches. The standard 8 port ones
from Dlink/SMC which come for 1050-1800 Rs.
These "switches" are not managed switches which is what the pro means
when he says switches. They are souped up hubs.
Router is a 802.11b Wireless ADSL Router with 3 port switch built
in.
again is the "switch" here a hub?. If it is a switch u would have
three additional ip addresses - one for each i/o.
If u really want some fancy control connect your hub/switch and router
to four ethernet cards in a debian box and use the box to do all
sorts of fancy filtering and bw managment. U could wire up ro reboot
the 802.11 router to reboot automagically.
--
rgds
jtd
6:31 a.m.
--- JTD <jtd(a)mtnl.net.in> wrote:
These "switches" are not managed switches
which is what the pro means
when he says switches. They are souped up hubs.
Router is a 802.11b Wireless ADSL Router with 3 port switch built
At the risk of sounding kindergarten, I'll admit that I did not know
about those switches being souped up hubs. I have learnt a new thing
today.
To answer your question about the IP addresses. No. there are no IP
addresses. The router has 2 ip addresses (LAN/WAN).
But the boxes say Switch. Surely Dlink/DAX know that they are selling??
Or maybe I did not read the fine print.
thanks again.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
in.
again is the "switch" here a
hub?. If it is a switch u would have
three additional ip addresses - one for each i/o.
If u really want some fancy control connect your hub/switch and
router to four ethernet cards in a debian box and use the box to do
all sorts of fancy filtering and bw managment.
8:09 a.m.
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:01 pm, Abhishek Daga wrote:
--- JTD <jtd(a)mtnl.net.in> wrote:
so that is just another souped up hub.
These "switches" are not managed
switches which is what the pro
means when he says switches. They are souped up hubs.
Router is a 802.11b Wireless ADSL Router with 3 port switch built
At the risk of sounding kindergarten, I'll admit that I did not
know about those switches being souped up hubs. I have learnt a new
thing today.
To answer your question about the IP addresses. No. there are no IP
addresses. The router has 2 ip addresses (LAN/WAN). in.
again is the "switch" here a hub?. If it is a switch u would have
three additional ip addresses - one for each i/o.
If u really want some fancy control connect your hub/switch and
router to four ethernet cards in a debian box and use the box to
do all sorts of fancy filtering and bw managment. But the boxes say Switch. Surely Dlink/DAX know that
they are
selling?? Or maybe I did not read the fine print.
Welcome to the world of network double speak. They do but would not
want you to know. The fine print is just below unreadable (never
published).
if u connect two such "switches" via the uplink port packet transfer
from from one to the other is minimised. But on the ports of each
switch everbody essentially receives everbody else's packets. Run
ethereal and see.
--
rgds
jtd
12:03 p.m.
JTD wrote:
so that is just another souped up hub.
What is this one below?
http://www.dlink.com/products/resource.asp?pid=70&rid=328&sec=0
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security
Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
2 Mar
2 Mar
8:31 a.m.
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 5:33 pm, Rony Bill wrote:
JTD wrote:
No idea abt this one.
--
rgds
jtd
so that is just another souped up hub.
What is this one below?
http://www.dlink.com/products/resource.asp?pid=70&rid=328&sec=0
27 Feb
27 Feb
6:49 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 23:01 +0530, Arun K. Khan wrote:
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 09:19 -0800, Abhishek Daga
wrote:
Searching for "ethernet+topology" came across the following that might
help the OP with valid topologies.
http://fcit.usf.edu/network/chap5/chap5.htm
--
Arun Khan
Linux is like a wigwam - no gates, no windows, apache inside
Hi folks,
I did attempt a google for this but did not know what search term would
actually pull up a meaningful result for this.
I tried http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=ethernet%2Bstandards
to read up on the basics.
7:29 p.m.
On Sunday 26 February 2006 17:19, Abhishek Daga wrote:
Apparatus/Equipment.
a) SMC wireless dsl router (3 port)
b) three 8 port switches, (dlink, dax, smc)
Setup:
4 ports in each are used to connect to various PCs.
1 port used up to connect to the wireless router.
Problem:
I have had issues with routers where frequent reseting is required.
So to prevent the entire internal network going down because of a bad
router, I decided to make the connections redundant.
So connected Port 6 of dlink to port 6 of Dax.
Port 7 of dlink to port 6 of smc.
Port 7 of dax to port 7 of smc
with the assumption that even if the router fails, i'l have
uninterrupted access.
But this was not to be. Things got messed up, despite enabled
connections, machines would not ping each other or the router.
Then finally removed the links from Switch 1 and 2 to the router and
also the connection from dax to smc and it started working fine.
So what got messed up in the above setup? I am thinking its something
to do with conflicts but not convinced as to why there would be a
conflict?
Sorry but i fail to see the redundancy of the above setup. If I
understand correctly, then each of the 3 routers are connected to 4
different PCs. So if one fails then some of the PCs will be able to
talk to each other. The ones connected to the failed router would be
out of the network for good.
--
Dinesh A. Joshi
4:47 p.m.
--- Dinesh Joshi <dinesh.a.joshi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Setup:
> 4 ports in each are used to connect to various PCs.
> 1 port used up to connect to the wireless router.
>
> So connected Port 6 of dlink to port 6 of Dax.
> Port 7 of dlink to port 6 of smc.
> Port 7 of dax to port 7 of smc
Sorry but i fail to see the redundancy of the above
setup. If I
understand correctly, then each of the 3 routers are connected to 4
different PCs. So if one fails then some of the PCs will be able to
talk to each other. The ones connected to the failed router would be
out of the network for good.
You are right, in that those PCs connected to the particular switch
would go offline.
I should have said, that atleast 66% of the network would be up still.
But what rony mentioned, looks interesting.. I'll do some research on
that.
thanks
abhi
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
8:34 p.m.
On 26/02/06 09:19 -0800, Abhishek Daga wrote:
<snip>
Problem:
I have had issues with routers where frequent reseting is required.
So to prevent the entire internal network going down because of a bad
router, I decided to make the connections redundant.
So connected Port 6 of dlink to port 6 of Dax.
Port 7 of dlink to port 6 of smc.
Port 7 of dax to port 7 of smc
with the assumption that even if the router fails, i'l have
uninterrupted access.
But this was not to be. Things got messed up, despite enabled
connections, machines would not ping each other or the router.
Google: Spanning Tree.
Homework: State with reasons why the original configuration fails.
Devdas Bhagat
28 Feb
28 Feb
2:58 a.m.
--- Devdas Bhagat <devdas(a)dvb.homelinux.org> wrote:
Google: Spanning Tree.
Homework: State with reasons why the original configuration fails.
Answer:
Spanning-Tree Protocol is a link management protocol that provides path
redundancy while preventing undesirable loops in the network.
Multiple active paths between stations cause loops in the network. If a
loop exists in the network topology, the potential exists for
duplication of messages.
I had a loop in my original configuration. therefore it failed.
For redundancy the spanning tree protocol forces certain redundant data
paths in a standby/blocked state.
i do not think tht with existing equipment and layout i wouldbe able to
provide such a redundant network.
thanks.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
4:23 a.m.
Abhishek Daga wrote:
--- Devdas Bhagat <devdas(a)dvb.homelinux.org> wrote:
You could use an extra switch and create a sun/star pattern where all
the 3 switches connect with a cable each to the fourth new one in the
centre. A free port in this new switch could then connect to the router.
If router fails then atlest the lan is still up. The advantage of sun
pattern should be better bandwidth in comparison with cascading or
serial connections.
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Google: Spanning Tree. Homework: State with
reasons why the
original configuration fails.
Answer: Spanning-Tree Protocol is a link management protocol that
provides path redundancy while preventing undesirable loops in the
network. Multiple active paths between stations cause loops in the
network. If a loop exists in the network topology, the potential
exists for duplication of messages. I had a loop in my original
configuration. therefore it failed.
11:48 a.m.
Rony Bill wrote:
You could use an extra switch and create a sun/star pattern where all
the 3 switches connect with a cable each to the fourth new one in
the centre. A free port in this new switch could then connect to the
router. If router fails then atlest the lan is still up. The
advantage of sun pattern should be better bandwidth in comparison
with cascading or serial connections.
A little more addition. You need not do any new wiring to connect a new
switch. Simply replace the router with the switch and place the router
adjacent to it. Connect a small lan cable between the switch and the
router.
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
6492
days inactive
6496
days old
19 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Abhishek Daga -
Arun K. Khan -
Devdas Bhagat -
Dinesh Joshi -
JTD -
Rony Bill -
Shahed Moolji