• 0

[Q] My Complex Network Setup, is this possible? should I try it?


Question

MariosX

Greetings.

 

I want to do this:

 

Modem => Switch => Router (which will log in to the internet and sync)

 

Normally it should be:

Modem => Router => Switch

 

like this image:

http://s26.postimg.org/x2q345r0p/diagram.jpg

 

Is it possible? will all devices in the network will get internet access and an IP?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
+BudMan

Does your isp provide you with multiple public IPs??  Or is that device your calling a modem actually a gateway doing nat?  If you plug a device into your "modem" what IP does it get.. Does it get something that starts with 10.x or 192.168.x or 172.16-31.x  or does it get something other than that.. On windows you can view your machines IP with ipconfig

 

example

ipconfig.thumb.png.f4a1c1ea0ecb40538343b

 

If something other than its public.. And the only way you would be able to connect a switch and then multiple computers if your ISP gives you more than 1 public IP..

 

What is the make and model number of your "modem" ? 

 

Why do you want to connect it with switch between your "modem" and your router??

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
sc302

Yea, it should be modem router switch unless your modem is handing off an internal address. 

 

Why do you want to change it around?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
offroadaaron

You can do this. The modem will obviously sync in bridged mode and your router will complete the PPP connection though the switch. I don't see an issue with this. You can still connect PC's/equipment to the switch as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
+BudMan

And how do the other PCs he is connecting to the switch work??  Did you look at his drawing?

 

diagram.thumb.jpg.b87a6ab6b86b5f2e0b8366

 

I just notice that "modem" with phone line connected.. So clearly that is not a modem, and is a gateway...  So its doing nat, they have not put out a dsl 'modem" in years and years that doesn't do nat... So sure you can do that.. But keep in mind your now double natting to the devices behind your 2nd router..

 

So again I ask why do you want to do that??  Do you just want to use your 2nd router as AP??

 

What do you think this accomplishes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
xbamaris

Without speculating too much... he probably wants to move his router to where his switch may be perhaps due to signal issues or something... That's the only logical reason I may see for this scenario but other then that... just a bad idea written all over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
offroadaaron
5 hours ago, BudMan said:

And how do the other PCs he is connecting to the switch work??  Did you look at his drawing?

 

diagram.thumb.jpg.b87a6ab6b86b5f2e0b8366

 

I just notice that "modem" with phone line connected.. So clearly that is not a modem, and is a gateway...  So its doing nat, they have not put out a dsl 'modem" in years and years that doesn't do nat... So sure you can do that.. But keep in mind your now double natting to the devices behind your 2nd router..

 

So again I ask why do you want to do that??  Do you just want to use your 2nd router as AP??

 

What do you think this accomplishes?

 

What? Why would they work any differently. They go through the router for internet traffic and switch as normal through the switch ports on both the router and switch.

 

  1. ASDL modem connects via a phone line, it can be in bridge mode and doesn't need to do any NAT.
  2. The router can authenticate via PPPoE out the WAN port (I'm assuming that's the WAN port) through the modem.
  3. Internet traffic will go though the router as per normal....

 

Is there something I'm not seeing here. There is no double NAT'ing in the setup here I've provided...

 

 

3 hours ago, Jared- said:

No.

Why? I have an ADSL router/modem in bridge mode and my ASA configured to authenticate though a switch over the modem's ADSL port via PPPoE. I've also done this with cable as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
+BudMan

So if your in bridge mode... Does your ISP give you more than 1 IP??

 

How are the PC before the nat router in his drawing going to get IPs from the router?  So if they don't get a public IP from the isp.. The can talk to each other sure..

 

Sure you can have a switch between your "modem" and your router... The question comes into play if your going to connect other devices to that switch..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
binaryzero

What are you trying to achieve doing this? I don't get it... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
offroadaaron
14 minutes ago, BudMan said:

So if your in bridge mode... Does your ISP give you more than 1 IP??

 

How are the PC before the nat router in his drawing going to get IPs from the router?  So if they don't get a public IP from the isp.. The can talk to each other sure..

 

Sure you can have a switch between your "modem" and your router... The question comes into play if your going to connect other devices to that switch..

Actually, you're kinda right you would need to connect a LAN port to the switch from the router as well if that's the case.

 

They actually won't be able to talk to each other either unless they have static IP addresses because DHCP won't go over that WAN interface with what I described above.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
+BudMan

So now you would have a loop your going to connect your wan of your router to the same switch as your lan??  Does that switch support vlans?

 

Yes it is quite possible to connect a router behind a switch, But without some more context putting this in context with your typical home setup - no as he showed it would not work..  I see 2 couple scenarios that maybe is what he wants??

 

1) that is not a modem and actually gateway doing nat.

1a) now those devices connect to switch are on that rfc1918 network, if they want to talk to stuff behind 2nd router he would have to port forward.  And he needs to make sure he does not use the same networks here.  Maybe that is what he wants?  Not sure why anyone would want that??  But maybe??

 

2) that is not a gateway and is a true modem..

2a) The those devices would be either on public network if his isp provides enough for the devices he is going to connect or some other network he set on them??

2b) One of those devices would take his public IP, and then other devices and router wouldn't work.  Or his router would take the 1 public IP and other devices would not work since they would most likely just get APIPA address.

 

Without more info hard to say exactly what he is trying to accomplish.  In general that would not be how you would setup home connection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
offroadaaron

 

27 minutes ago, BudMan said:

So now you would have a loop your going to connect your wan of your router to the same switch as your lan??  Does that switch support vlans?

Is it going to create a loop? I mean the WAN and LAN should be completely different networks with different MAC addresses and seperate from each other... I'm not sure if it would or wouldn't create a loop in this case...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
+BudMan

Your right it wouldn't actually be a technical loop since the wan interface and lan interfaces of the router are not the same layer 2..   But what would be the point???

 

Now your talking running 2 different layer 3 networks over the same layer 2..  And you just connected your "lan" machines even behind the router at layer 2 to the internet if that "modem" is actually a modem and not a gateway.  So all the broadcasts would be seen..  And now if your router is handing out dhcp... Devices on your isp asking for dhcp could get IP on your routers scope..

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
MariosX

My modem would be a Draytek Vigor 120 http://www.draytek.co.uk/products/business/vigor-120#1-overview

and it will act as a bridge nothing else, no router, no firewall, nothing everything else will be handled by ASUS RT-AC87U.

 

That is because on my home network I do not want to have 2 routers , 2 DCHP servers, 2 firewalls, 2 port forwarders and etc and I do not want complicated things nor I want to configure everything twice or thrice.

 

Also I cannot directly connect my modem to my router because the phone line is in a different room in the house (even though they are in different rooms, I connect them via an ethernet cable but I only have 1) and I want the router in a different room for signal reasons, management etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
sc302

Anything you want your router to be able to handle would have to be behind your router.  You would have to run a wire to your router then back to the switch (that would be the correct way to handle it).  If you don't like that, buy an access point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Mando
17 minutes ago, MariosX said:

My modem would be a Draytek Vigor 120 http://www.draytek.co.uk/products/business/vigor-120#1-overview

and it will act as a bridge nothing else, no router, no firewall, nothing everything else will be handled by ASUS RT-AC87U.

 

That is because on my home network I do not want to have 2 routers , 2 DCHP servers, 2 firewalls, 2 port forwarders and etc and I do not want complicated things nor I want to configure everything twice or thrice.

 

Also I cannot directly connect my modem to my router because the phone line is in a different room in the house (even though they are in different rooms, I connect them via an ethernet cable but I only have 1) and I want the router in a different room for signal reasons, management etc.

Have you ever considered the plugin lan extenders? they could also sort out your signal issues if you got the wired/AP extender models. You could then leave your setup as is. 

 

I use 2 pairs of wired extenders one to a gig switch non-managed for living room feeds to 3 devices and other pair up to PC upstairs, Nas is directly plugged into the LAN port on router and available from all devices that get DHCP from my adsl modem/router combo (Asus N16U)

 

something like this http://www.amazon.co.uk/TP-LINK-TL-WPA4226KIT-Powerline-Configuration-Smartphone/dp/B00LIZ0HPO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1450117534&sr=8-2&keywords=wired+and+wireless+powerline

 

latency on them can be reduced a touch by enabling QoS etc and giving their interfaces priority in your routers rules

Edited by Mando
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
MariosX
3 minutes ago, sc302 said:

Anything you want your router to be able to handle would have to be behind your router.  You would have to run a wire to your router then back to the switch (that would be the correct way to handle it).  If you don't like that, buy an access point. 

I guess... a second wire would be best or Power over Ethernet but I cannot avoid everything it seems:

a) Power over ethernet has some latency 2-4 ms instead of <1ms

b) 2nd wire will make me drill some holes

c) access point would be costly if I want the same WiFi speeds

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
sc302

a. not true, I get less than 1ms to my aps.  All of my aps (almost 30 ubiquitis to date) are poe through my cisco poe switches...even several switches away in another building they are less than 1ms.

b. true

c. not true.  you can pick up a ubiquiti ap almost as much as a mid range router.  70 for a wireless N ap, 100 for a wireless ac ap. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
c.grz

In the picture provided, how far is the modem from the router?

 

Why not swap the switch and the router? There is no real reason to make it that difficult.

 

To be honest; the reason being given for attempting the setup in the picture doesn't make much sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
MariosX
9 minutes ago, c.grz said:

In the picture provided, how far is the modem from the router?

 

Why not swap the switch and the router? There is no real reason to make it that difficult.

 

To be honest; the reason being given for attempting the setup in the picture doesn't make much sense.

Because I want the router to be in my room and the distance between them is 50 meters

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
c.grz
7 minutes ago, MariosX said:

Because I want the router to be in my room and the distance between them is 50 meters

Then you're best bet is to run one long cable from the modem to your router's WAN port and then connect your switch to a switch port on your router.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
+BudMan

"Because I want the router to be in my room and the distance between them is 50 meters"

 

What does the routers location matter, other than is also your only AP and need it placed for good wifi coverage.

 

If your vigor is in bridge mode, and device plugged into it get public IP..  The the correct solution is to run a wire, the use of the switch between is pointless..  If you need to connect 2 wires that are currently run then sure a switch cab be used... But it wouldn't be viable to run any other devices off that switch that would be on your network behind your router.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
binaryzero
7 hours ago, sc302 said:

a. not true, I get less than 1ms to my aps.  All of my aps (almost 30 ubiquitis to date) are poe through my cisco poe switches...even several switches away in another building they are less than 1ms.

b. true

c. not true.  you can pick up a ubiquiti ap almost as much as a mid range router.  70 for a wireless N ap, 100 for a wireless ac ap. 

 

 

Meraki?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
sc302

I haven't priced them in a while, do they go that low now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.