Klistvud:
> Dne, 20. 04. 2011 11:25:27 je Jochen Schulz napisal(a):
>> Klistvud:
>>>
>>> I'm planning to purchase a wired (consumer grade) switch since I've
>>> heard they're inherently more robust than (consumer grade) routers,
>>> and I'm planning to connect it *directly* to our cable broadband
>>> modem. Then, the two families would connect their respective routers
>>> (we have some spare wireless routers) to this switch. The various
>>> computers and network printers would then be connected, in turn, to
>>> these routers.
>>
>> You are looking for a router (OSI layer 3), not a switch (OSI layer 2).
>> …
>
> Using a router is precisely what I'm trying to avoid here.
I don't really know how cable broadband works, but AFAIU you need
exactly one system routing your traffic to the WAN, just like with DSL.
If this is the case, you need a router, period. That device doesn't need
to be the usual plastic junk, but it needs to, erm, route IP traffic.
That's why it's called a router. ;-)
> 1. Having had a router for the last 5 years or so, I've come to the
> conclusion that a single router, with a single configuration
> interface, can not accomodate our differing needs (the other family
> uses strictly Windows and needs UPnP, we strictly use Debian and
> hate UPnP;
I must admit I never really understood what UPnP actually does, but if
you mean the automatic port-forwarding nonsense: it might be possible to
enable it for one network only with OpenWrt.
> resetting the shared router by one person has broken a
> download or some other internet-related task for the other person
> many a time;
The real problem here is that you need to reset the router in the first
place. I don't remember having done this with my WRT54GL ever. But my
network is not as busy as yours, of course.
> we both need so many ports forwarded that the 20
> available ports of an average router simply aren't enough;
No problem with OpenWrt.
> 2. Consumer grade routers are flaky at best; cramming a firewall,
> port forwarding, NATting, dhcp, routing and what not into a 32 MB
> device apparently wasn't such a great idea,
I wouldn't blame the low quality of the software on the low hardware
specs.
> I'd rather have a good switch or even hub than a consumer-grade router
> doing my broadband sharing.
It's just that a switch isn't capable of doing what you need.
> 3. Segment independence. I want to be able to use my network segment
> no matter what is happening on the other segment. With one central
> router serving both segments -- no matter how separated they may be
> internally to the device -- this can't be achieved.
With your proposed network layout, internal traffic doesn't reach the
shared router at all. Only cross-network (if allowed at all) and WAN
traffic goes through the shared router.
> What I had in mind is something like this:
> http://www.ehow.com/how_6823201_use-switch-hub-instead-router.html .
This only works if your cable modem is actually a router. As I said, I
don't know the specifics of cable broadband.
If your cable modem is able to connect to the WAN by itself, then you
can just go ahead any buy practically any switch on the market. The
cheaper it is, the less you have / are able to configure.
J.
--
I am on the payroll of a company to whom I owe my undying gratitude.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature