need a better network setup...

[pasc0n3sian]

first of all i cant believe i have to ask these basic questions,
but i've been out of the loop now for soooo long...

currently i live on a property with 3 seperate dwellings.
we all want to share the same internet access
cuz nobody uses much bandwidth, but we dont want to share files.
unit1 and unit2 share a wall; unit3 is about 100' away.
unit1 has a cable modem and linksys WRT160N router,
which provide web access for unit1 and unit2.
unit3 has a seperate cable modem and WRT54G
which we want to eliminate as a cost saving measure.
unit3 only picks up the WRT160N on occassion and its a weak signal.
what i want to know is:

CAN I RUN A CAT5 CABLE FROM THE WRT160N TO THE WRT54G AND SHARE THE 1 CABLE MODEM FOR WEB ACCESS?
if yes,
- does it need to be crossover or is patch ok?
- whats the difference between cat5 and cat6?

if no, what other options should i consider?
i havent heard much positive about the wi-fi range extender antennaes.

thanks for your time,
aloha

 

[Anti-Trend]

CAN I RUN A CAT5 CABLE FROM THE WRT160N TO THE WRT54G AND SHARE THE 1 CABLE MODEM FOR WEB ACCESS?

Yes, provided that you have a router behind it, and connect all PCs to that.
If you need it, I can make you a simple topology diagram later to illustrate.

- does it need to be crossover or is patch ok?

Depends on the switches you're using. A crossover is the proper way, but a lot of switches will do auto-uplink.

- whats the difference between cat5 and cat6?

Maximum bandwidth. If you're just using it for broadband, cat5 is more than good enough.

All the best,
-Chris

 

[pasc0n3sian]

thanks for the reply anti-trend,
so let me get this straight::

. . modem
. . . . |
WRT160N--cat5--WRT54G
. | . . . | . . . . . . | . . . |
computers . . . more computers


and they should all be able share the same internet connection using wi-Fi or whatever

 

[Anti-Trend]

I've attached a diagram showing what I mean. Basically once you get the network connection to them, they can connect using cables, drop a WAP in there, whatever.

 

[DaRuSsIaMaN]

Hmm AT, they already have 2 routers. Your setup would make one of the routers useless and would require buying 2 switches, if I understand you right? Isn't it possible to use what they already have by making one router act as the "main" router (connected directly to modem) and then making the other router act as a switch (not connected to modem but only to the "main" router)? Not sure how to do it, but it is definitely possible to network multiple routers together in a LAN, isn't it?

 

[Anti-Trend]

Hmm AT, they already have 2 routers. Your setup would make one of the routers useless and would require buying 2 switches.

Yup.

Isn't it possible to use what they already have by making one router act as the "main" router (connected directly to modem) and then making the other router act as a switch (not connected to modem but only to the "main" router)?

Depends on the router, but seems pretty ghetto just to save $10.

Not sure how to do it, but it is definitely possible to network multiple routers together in a LAN, isn't it?

Yes, but you don't want to double-NAT traffic, or you'll start to have trouble with various web services.

Again, all that just to save a few bucks on a switch? Doesn't seem worth it to me, which is why I didn't suggest it. You'd have to pay me a lot more than $10 to troubleshoot network problems because somebody reset a plastic router back to factory defaults and it started serving DHCP. Better to just use the right tool for the job rather than have to go back and fix it later.

 

[donkey42]

Your setup would make one of the routers useless and would require buying 2 switches, if I understand you right? Isn't it possible to use what they already have by making one router act as the "main" router (connected directly to modem) and then making the other router act as a switch (not connected to modem but only to the "main" router)? Not sure how to do it, but it is definitely possible to network multiple routers together in a LAN, isn't it?

yeah, your correct DRMAN as simply disabling DHCP effectively turns a router into a switch but as AT said, if some plank reset the router to fatory defaults it would reenable the disabled DHCP Server provided by the router and create a hard to trace fault

 

[DaRuSsIaMaN]

Ah, alright. I see. Thx for explaining, guys.

 

[Anti-Trend]

yeah, your correct DRMAN as simply disabling DHCP effectively turns a router into a switch but as AT said, if some plank reset the router to fatory defaults it would reenable the disabled DHCP Server provided by the router and create a hard to trace fault

Hehe, actually donkey's not exactly correct either. I don't mean to nitpick, but I also don't want anybody to be accidentally mislead.

DHCP doesn't really have anything to do with routing; it's the mechanism that automatically hands out IP and basic network configuration info. I used it as an example because if you have 2 DHCP servers on 1 network and only one is properly configured, the other will be giving incorrect info to any computers unfortunate enough to get an IP from it. Therefore, those PCs getting the incorrect info probably wouldn't be able to get out on the internet in this example. Make sense?

 

[donkey42]

DHCP doesn't really have anything to do with routing; it's the mechanism that automatically hands out IP and basic network configuration info. I used it as an example because if you have 2 DHCP servers on 1 network and only one is properly configured, the other will be giving incorrect info to any computers unfortunate enough to get an IP from it. Therefore, those PCs getting the incorrect info probably wouldn't be able to get out on the internet in this example. Make sense?

yeah, understood, :beer: AT