# Will this networking topology work?



## vziera (Jan 20, 2015)

Hi, I'm new into networking infrastructure so I would like to know if this topology will work, 




 

Corrections will be greatly appreciated, and I would also like to know which devices have their own IP

Thank you!

Mark


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 20, 2015)

Anything connected to the router should pull a private IP if DHCP is enabled. The layout is kind of scattered and my question is do you have the switch connected to the router for those wired devices?


----------



## bpgt64 (Jan 20, 2015)

It should work, but keep in mind if your running voip phones + wireless + competing with the Desktops for bandwidth out.....Could be a problem with Voip call quality


----------



## Ahhzz (Jan 20, 2015)

I presume that the "Attached Access Point" is not a standard AP, but setup as a wireless bridge. On that note, most wireless units won't bridge unless you're attaching an identical unit on the other end.


edit: also, bpgt64 is correct: moving data from that many PCs and VOIP over a wireless bridge will bring some quality challenges....


edit 2 : here's a link for linksys and their directions on wireless bridging.


----------



## Ahhzz (Jan 20, 2015)

brandonwh64 said:


> Anything connected to the router should pull a private IP if DHCP is enabled. The layout is kind of scattered and my question is do you have the switch connected to the router for those wired devices?


I _believe_ by the lightning bolt between the two, he means the router to wirelessly bridge over to the AP, then using the AP to feed the switch, and subsequent devices.


----------



## xvi (Jan 20, 2015)

I'd be curious to know what you have in mind as for a firewall. I made a few changes under the assumption that this is for a sort of small business/home office and the wireless router is a standard off-the-shelf type unit. I'd strongly recommend against relying on a wireless bridge like that for most almost all devices. Unless done really well, wireless is typically a bit shaky and shouldn't be relied on for much, especially VoIP phones.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 20, 2015)

Using a AP point as a repeater will half bandwidth to whatever is connected to it. I would say hardware everything you can to the switch.


----------



## remixedcat (Jan 20, 2015)

brandonwh64 said:


> Using a AP point as a repeater will half bandwidth to whatever is connected to it. I would say hardware everything you can to the switch.


Repeaters are de debil


----------



## xvi (Jan 20, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> Repeaters are de debil


As a WISP guy, very much this. Do it proper. Run a cable to a new AP, deploy on channels 1, 6, 11, repeat. Using RTS/CTS will allow networks sharing the same channel to coexist nicely with each other.


----------



## bpgt64 (Jan 20, 2015)

Anything running voip...I'd re-enforce, run a cable..even if it's a power line type deal.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 20, 2015)

What is this network for? Home? Business?


----------



## remixedcat (Jan 21, 2015)

Some switches even have a VOIP  VLAN

Mine does:


----------



## vziera (Jan 21, 2015)

Sorry I just checked, thank you for your responses my friends  
This network is for my CISCO homework, the homework is about drawing both physical and logical network topology of a real office but since I got no office nor know anyone who's got one, I decided to use my silly simpleton imagination instead...

Here's my revision in response to your inputs my friends:





BTW can a very good NAT router remove the need for that switch and that access point so we can save more money?

Now I need to define the parameters like IP, Mask, Gateway, etc on certain spots in the picture, I hope you guys can help me with this...

Oh and if you guys have a better topology idea for an office, please share it here.  Thank you again my friends!


----------



## vziera (Jan 21, 2015)

xvi said:


> As a WISP guy, very much this. Do it proper. Run a cable to a new AP, deploy on channels 1, 6, 11, repeat. Using RTS/CTS will allow networks sharing the same channel to coexist nicely with each other.






remixedcat said:


> Some switches even have a VOIP  VLAN
> 
> Mine does:
> View attachment 61907



Sorry my friend but I think it's a bit too technically advanced for me to understand at the moment, those parameters @_@


----------



## remixedcat (Jan 21, 2015)

cisco or cisco LINKSYS??


----------



## vziera (Jan 21, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> cisco or cisco LINKSYS??


I'm taking an unofficial CISCO CCNA course during my unemployment


----------



## remixedcat (Jan 21, 2015)

but what do you have?


----------



## vziera (Jan 21, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> but what do you have?


You mean the peripherals? if so none, I have none

The pic is just my illustration of a small office network topology based on nothing but my limited knowledge, suppose they are mix of brands or just cisco


----------



## remixedcat (Jan 21, 2015)

Cisco linksys and Cisco are completely different grades of products


----------



## xvi (Jan 21, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> Cisco linksys and Cisco are completely different grades of products


"I have a Cisco router" Do you mean a Linksys router? "Yeah. A Link-see router." *sigh* 


vziera said:


> Sorry my friend but I think it's a bit too technically advanced for me to understand at the moment, those parameters @_@


The main thing is that I really recommend against using a wireless bridge unless absolutely necessary. If you really need to, set up a point-to-point link, I've found that Ubiquiti gear is generally quite cost effective for this. RTS/CTS is just a method for access points and clients to avoid collisions with other normal wireless transmissions. It should even work between different wireless networks, but only if it uses the same channel as the other network (iirc). Looks like there's an access point right off the router? Unless that AP is physically far away from the router (with its built-in AP), it likely wouldn't be worth having the second AP there. Depends on the physical layout.

I don't think setting up a VLAN for VoIP isn't uncommon, but I'm not sure if it has any performance benefit, I think only security/simplicity. I'm not knowledgeable on this though. Remixed?

What kind of usage will the network see? I'm guessing just standard small business stuff, in which case unmanaged switches and off-the-shelf routers would likely do okay. Also, the device labeled "public switch", does that connect to anything else? It doesn't appear to be necessary.


----------



## remixedcat (Jan 21, 2015)

VOIP VLAnS  add QOS settings and have it isolated and protected and have higher priortity

also if you have more than one VLAN you NEED  managed switch, as they have trunk ports and you need a trunk port to pass multi vlans thru one interface


----------



## Ahhzz (Jan 21, 2015)

Personally, I'm more inclined to recommend the Netgear line. Stay away from the Linksys: their quality has dropped dramatically lately, in our experience. 

Your circuit looks SUBSTANTIALLY better. As for eliminating the wireless AP and the second switch, Yes and No. You'll want to have a dedicated router to manage DHCP, with possibly as many as 4 ports on it: eliminating the switch wouldn't be a good idea. However, removing the Access Point, and simply going with a wireless router is definitely acceptable, as long as your range for the wireless is acceptable for the client computers. Problem is, most times, your router is located where the Internet comes in, and the laptops/other wireless devices are located much farther away than is reasonable to reach with that router. So, keep the switch, and determine whether or not your wireless devices will be close enough to get good signal from your router.

 I do wonder why you have a "Public Switch" in place in there. Is that something that is required, or were you just unsure what goes there? Usually, you'll have an Internet connection come directly to your router, then out to an internal switch, unless you're sharing the internet feed with someone else.....


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 21, 2015)

CISCO / CCNA (which he mentioned) is not a router brand he's using guys.  It's a whole commercial certification test.  This network does not really exist, and is assumed to be brand agnostic.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 21, 2015)

If the switch is unmanaged then its mearly a means for more ports to connect to the router. If it is managed it can be configured for all types of features such as VLAN tagging and QoS.

Do you have the deliverables for the assignment?


----------



## xvi (Jan 21, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> also if you have more than one VLAN you NEED managed switch, as they have trunk ports and you need a trunk port to pass multi vlans thru one interface


I have a dumb switch that passes VLAN traffic between a few VM hosts. I don't think it's really designed to, just that it doesn't really care at all if packets are slightly over MTU. I know it's certainly hit-or-miss when it comes to which switch allows it though. Managed is always better, of course.


----------



## vziera (Jan 21, 2015)

Okay here is the update in response to your inputs friends:



 

Kindly correct me if there's anything wrong, and yes this is kinda for a small business office. Really appreciate your comments friends, it means a lot!


----------



## Ahhzz (Jan 21, 2015)

Looks sharp.


----------



## xvi (Jan 21, 2015)

vziera said:


> Kindly correct me if there's anything wrong, and yes this is kinda for a small business office. Really appreciate your comments friends, it means a lot!


Looks nice! Only thing I can think to add is to see if that wireless printer/scanner can be wired in somehow. If signal strength is good off of it, it should be okay, but it adds a hefty chunk (relatively) of unreliability since it's competing with just about everything else that uses 2.4 GHz. I've seen a surprising number of wireless issues caused by things like baby monitors and wireless cameras. If you're not rubbing elbows with your neighbors (potential interference), it may not be much of an issue.

I had a client who'd call up because her home wireless network would disappear whenever her neighbors were home. Went from working great to can't even *see* it. Her computer was only a few feet from her router. Her neighbors were about 120-150 feet away (depending on which one she was talking about). I don't know what her neighbors were doing, but spitting out THAT much 2.4 makes me concerned for their health. No idea what it was.


----------



## vziera (Jan 22, 2015)

What of the labels and parameters? are they correct? I mean the IP, DNS, etc


----------



## Ahhzz (Jan 22, 2015)

vziera said:


> What of the labels and parameters? are they correct? I mean the IP, DNS, etc


Overall, looks good. I would probably hard-code the IP for the Access Point in the top center, for ease of troubleshooting later. The same with the printers, as they usually have web pages that make management easy, and these days, the auto-follow function that keeps track of the printers when they change IP, is proce to _not_ giving you an actual IP to use, but something gobbledy-gook. Otherwise, I think you're fine.


----------



## vziera (Jan 22, 2015)

Awesome thank you mate!, you guys saved my life and those who are new to this kinda thing!!!


----------



## FireFox (Jan 22, 2015)

brandonwh64 said:


> Anything connected to the router should pull a private IP if DHCP is enabled


And if a Pc is connected to a router but the DHCP is not enabled what happens?


----------



## xvi (Jan 22, 2015)

Knoxx29 said:


> And if a Pc is connected to a router but the DHCP is not enabled what happens?


APIPA! (Automatic Private IP Address). That's that 169.254.XXX.XXX(/16) number that devices sometimes get when a connection isn't working correctly. It's designed that in the event that there isn't a DHCP server available (an Ad-Hoc wireless network, for example), all devices will give themselves an IP on a common subnet and said devices can still communicate with each other.


----------



## vziera (Jan 22, 2015)

Gonna make the final revision, thanks bro!


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 22, 2015)

Knoxx29 said:


> And if a Pc is connected to a router but the DHCP is not enabled what happens?



No Ip is given to the client. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Host_Configuration_Protocol


----------



## FireFox (Jan 22, 2015)

brandonwh64 said:


> No Ip is given to the client.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Host_Configuration_Protocol


It means that if I have a router and I turn of DHCP and the Pc is connected to the router I won't get Internet?


----------



## xvi (Jan 22, 2015)

Knoxx29 said:


> It means that if I have a router and I turn of DHCP and the Pc is connected to the router I won't get Internet?


Correct. Your router won't give itself an APIPA address and the APIPA address that your devices assign themselves wouldn't care even if it did. They wouldn't know that your router is a router and it wouldn't know to put any data through it.

If you turned off DHCP on your router, someone could still statically assign themselves a normal address and still access the internet through the router, assuming they had/guessed the right IPs for everything.


----------



## FireFox (Jan 22, 2015)

xvi said:


> Correct. Your router won't give itself an APIPA address and the APIPA address that your devices assign themselves wouldn't care even if it did. They wouldn't know that your router is a router and it wouldn't know to put any data through it.
> 
> If you turned off DHCP on your router, someone could still statically assign themselves a normal address and still access the internet through the router, assuming they had/guessed the right IPs for everything.


I have a weird case.
To my router i connect a Netgear firewall and to the Netgear i connect my pc, the router act as router modem then i go to my router settings and i turn off DHCP and set the router modem to act just as Modem then i apply and save the settings and the Pc doesn't loss connection, how could that be possible?

Note: when I do those changes the Pc is turn on and connect to the Internet.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 22, 2015)

Knoxx29 said:


> It means that if I have a router and I turn of DHCP and the Pc is connected to the router I won't get Internet?



You could manually assign the IP and DNS to each PC if you want but the router itself will not give it an IP address.


----------



## remixedcat (Jan 23, 2015)

There's also somehting called static DHCP and that's what i use for the main systems.


----------



## FireFox (Jan 23, 2015)

Still no answer to my weird case


----------



## remixedcat (Jan 23, 2015)

turning off the DHCP server makes it into a switch for wired and an access point for wireless.

then when you connect it to the 1st router that 1st router is the DHCP server and such.


----------



## FireFox (Jan 23, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> turning off the DHCP server makes it into a switch for wired and an access point for wireless.
> 
> then when you connect it to the 1st router that 1st router is the DHCP server and such.


Ok that's a logical answer.
But why if I first turn off DHCP and set the Modem Router to act just as Modem and then I connect the Netgear firewall to the Modem Router that it's acting just as Modem and then i connect the the pc to the Netgear Firewall I don't get Internet?


Note: I Noticed that first I have to leave the Modem Router with DHCP turn on and leave it acting as Router Modem after that i can connect the Netgear firewall and then I connect the pc and I get Internet, turning  DHCP off and setting the Modem Router to act just as Modem before I get Internet connection don't give me Internet and that doesn't make too much sense.


----------



## remixedcat (Jan 23, 2015)

Ok:

Modem/router (MODEM ONLY)>Router/Firewall>PCs.

Is that what you are trying to do?

Why not just get a seperate modem, connect to the firewall, then use the switch and access points?

If you have the modem in modem mode only you need to set the DHCP on the firewall. 

If the modem/router is on BOTH you need to turn off DHCP on the 2nd device.


----------



## FireFox (Jan 24, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> Ok:
> 
> Modem/router (MODEM ONLY)>Router/Firewall>PCs.
> 
> ...


Sorry for the late reply.
Btw, that's not what I am trying to do, that's what i have 
That's right Modem Router only Modem>Netgear Firewall>Pcs, 

DHCP is turn off on the Modem/Router that act just as Modem and the Netgear firewall is acting as Nat.


----------



## remixedcat (Jan 24, 2015)

That should work if it's really a firewall


----------



## remixedcat (Jan 24, 2015)

not unless the modemrouter is borked


----------



## FireFox (Jan 24, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> That should work if it's really a firewall


Yes it is, btw what means borked?
Sorry about my ignorance


----------



## Mindweaver (Jan 24, 2015)

Like @remixedcat said you'll want to turn off DHCP on the 2nd router. Having two routers on the same network will cause nothing but problems. Now you could have 2 and do something like a load balance and set the 1st DHCP server to 192.168.10.2-192.168.10.127 and the 2nd DHCP server 192.168.10.128-192.168.10.255, this would create redundancy as well in the event one DHCP server fails. I would set the DNS server on your server. Do you plain to use /24 subnet?


----------



## xvi (Jan 25, 2015)

"Borked" is slang for "broken", basically.


Mindweaver said:


> Like @remixedcat said you'll want to turn off DHCP on the 2nd router. Having two routers on the same network will cause nothing but problems. Now you could have 2 and do something like a load balance and set the 1st DHCP server to 192.168.10.2-192.168.10.127 and the 2nd DHCP server 192.168.10.128-192.168.10.255, this would create redundancy as well in the event one DHCP server fails. I would set the DNS server on your server. Do you plain to use /24 subnet?


I don't think a typical router would allow that level of control over DHCP settings, although I think it would if it were flashed with DD-WRT (or similar options). Would be a nifty solution if possible though.


----------



## Mindweaver (Jan 25, 2015)

xvi said:


> "Borked" is slang for "broken", basically.
> 
> I don't think a typical router would allow that level of control over DHCP settings, although I think it would if it were flashed with DD-WRT (or similar options). Would be a nifty solution if possible though.


Well I would hope with the amount of hardware behind the router he is not using a consumer router. I would think he would want something along the lines of a SonicWall. Plus, this is a Cisco test so it should have those features. Plus, I was only giving him a scenario of how he could get it to work.


----------



## FireFox (Jan 25, 2015)

xvi said:


> I don't think a typical router would allow that level of control over DHCP settings,


What @Mindweaver said is possible on my Router/Modem but i prefer to use Static Ip.



Mindweaver said:


> this is a Cisco test so it should have those features.


This is not a Cisco test, maybe you're confused with the OP case and mine.

My Network settings.


----------



## remixedcat (Jan 25, 2015)

How is the port config on your FIREWALL?


----------



## FireFox (Jan 25, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> How is the port config on your FIREWALL?


What do you mean?


----------



## remixedcat (Jan 25, 2015)

does it have the options to do different DHCP per port like how fortinet has theirs?


----------



## Mindweaver (Jan 25, 2015)

@Knoxx29 - Yea, I was talking about the OP. I agree with setting it static over dynamic. I would set all of your wired hardware static and even PC's with wireless set those to static as well and just leave phones and tablets to dynamic.

*EDIT: @Knoxx29 you should create your own thread buddy next time.*


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 25, 2015)

Knoxx, I would get rid of that JFS524E switch. Its a bottle neck with fast Ethernet ports. You would benefit from another gigabit switch.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 25, 2015)

I'm not sure why there is two extra switches in there, seems silly, and gives more failure points, use one fast gigabit as it will have enough backplane bandwidth to do everything you want. chuck the rest or keep them as backups.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 25, 2015)

Steevo said:


> I'm not sure why there is two extra switches in there, seems silly, and gives more failure points, use one fast gigabit as it will have enough backplane bandwidth to do everything you want. chuck the rest or keep them as backups.



I thought this as well. Unless you are running over the gigabit switch I would take the 100M switch out completely.


----------



## FireFox (Jan 25, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> does it have the options to do different DHCP per port


Yes it does, but since I bought it i am using it with the default settings, each port has the same rules.



Mindweaver said:


> EDIT: @Knoxx29 you should create your own thread buddy next time


Mistake, my apologies.



brandonwh64 said:


> Knoxx, I would get rid of that JFS524E switch. Its a bottle neck with fast Ethernet ports. You would benefit from another gigabit switch.


I dont use the JFS524E and I don't connect anything to it, I just have it there because I don't want to have it laying around.


Steevo said:


> use one fast gigabit


The GS108 is Gigabit.

Note: Modem>Gigabit switch>Netgear Firewall>PC'S
JFS524E connect to the Gigabit Switch but not in use.


----------

