Help! I've become a Windows network admin!

[drlunanerd]

anyone saying that two people _browsing_ a file server will max out a powerline connection should be ignored...

the main reason to run fibre between floors, is if they are fed by different phases in the building (415V here in the UK).

to get better inbound bandwidth from multiple ADSL lines, you need to bond them at the exchange end , not load balance them at the customer end I'd suggest Andrews and Arnold http://aa.nu for bonded ADSL2

unless you get exceptional pricing on 2nd user Cisco, I'd suggest getting new HP Procurve, the lifetime warranty and free firmware updates is the winner from my perspective.

I second HP ProCurve stuff for smaller projects such as this. Cisco stuff has been more unreliable than any other networking hardware I've used in my career and IMO is overkill for you anyway...

There's lots to learn but I'm self-taught too in the Windows world (and the Apple world for that matter). Last year I put in a new Exchange, Active Directory, Windows Server, VPN, new ISP etc. solution completely on my own which has been 100% reliable so far. If I can do it you can do it!

 

[belvdr]

anyone saying that two people _browsing_ a file server will max out a powerline connection should be ignored...

the main reason to run fibre between floors, is if they are fed by different phases in the building (415V here in the UK).

to get better inbound bandwidth from multiple ADSL lines, you need to bond them at the exchange end , not load balance them at the customer end I'd suggest Andrews and Arnold http://aa.nu for bonded ADSL2

unless you get exceptional pricing on 2nd user Cisco, I'd suggest getting new HP Procurve, the lifetime warranty and free firmware updates is the winner from my perspective.

And how many people just browse a file share without doing anything with it? I meant users using a file server. If you have 100Mb to the desktop, then having a smaller bandwidth line as the trunk to the server is a very dumb idea.

You say different phases is the reason to run fiber. What in the world are you talking about? There are plenty of reasons to use fiber, none of which have to do with the phase of electricity supplying the devices (high bandwidth, long distance, not susceptible to interference, etc). I can run 110V or 220V to any of my switches and it doesn't impact the fiber at all.

As for your BGP suggestion above this post, that's why I recommended not going that route. Had you bothered to read, I recommended going with a higher bandwidth line or using weighted fair queuing and bypassing BGP altogether. I have used this in the past with a couple of T1's. Works fine.

It looks to me as if you should be ignored, since you cannot be bothered to read the entire thread or anything in particular.

 

[windywoo]

Hey I would never recommend wireless or powerplug for heavy use, but I supported plenty of companies where they only used Word Documents, Excel Spreadsheets, Powerpoint, Email and internet. Those companies would have their needs met by either solution.

 

[SingaporeStu]

try this:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac220/about_cisco_general_networking_resources.html

its free

 

[RedTomato]

Gentlemen, please don't argue.

USAian and UK bandwidth costs are very different. I pay in London for a 10mb (symmetric) what I could get an OC3 for in Boston. BGP4 is good, but not the right tool for what the OP is trying to achieve, if he could afford an ISP that could do BGP, he wouldn't be trying to bond two £24 per month connections...

Assembled is right. I'm doing this on the cheap. The reason for trying to get two ADSL connections (around £24 each per month) is:

- for greater reliability. UK ISPS (especially cheap ones) tend to fall over every now and then. BeThere (our ISP) sometimes has DNS issues or falls into Spamhaus's black hole. Hopefully if one ISP goes down we can auto fall-over to the other one.

- For greater outgoing bandwidth. ADSL2+ connections here are around 8-16mb down, and up to about 2.4mb up for about £25 a month. With two lines, hopefully I can double the outgoing bandwith for servicing our five external offices on the WAN.

What I do NOT need is:

- greater incoming bandwidth. 16mb/sec is enough for the office here.

But dual ADSL probably won't happen. An engineer said (informally) our wiring here is pretty ******, and that the only way to upgrade might be to dig a tunnel to the main junction box. Which isn't going to happen.

Hey I would never recommend wireless or powerplug for heavy use

Thanks. We're ethernet here. As we have a lot of deaf staff, I'm putting in a gigabit ethernet framework now. In the next few years, we may start looking at setting up webcam / videophone calling for signed conversations.

A couple of offices already have videophones, but they're pretty ****** (i.e. cheap) and don't get used much.

As I said above, powerline is an idea I might use for difficult locations.

try this:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac220/about_cisco_general_networking_resources.html

its free

Thanks - looks a very useful resource.

 

[assembled]

take a look at pfsense for loadbancing, and for inter office VPN links. you could also split inter office VPN links between multiple connections at the main office, setting up routes so that connectiosn to specific addresses go over specific links is quite easy

 

[Consultant]

Have you tried Wireless N only connections? Get 2 Airport Extreme stations, set one up as access point, using your main router as DHCP server, while the other to receive signal.

Encrypt using WPA2 with non-standard names.

Should work through interior floor. Extremely low latency for me.

If it doesn't work you can return them.

 

[RedTomato]

Hello,

News update:

I got the specs of the switches we will probably get. Two of these:

http://www.dabs.com/products/best-value-24-port-gigabit-ethernet-switch-529T.html

Two cheapish 24-port gigabit switches, £100 each inc taxes. We decided no point in getting a 16-port switch.

No word on the router yet, but I will start putting in the switches in the next couple of weeks. I've ordered 300 feet of cat5e cable and various ties and hooks and it should be delivered in a few days.

Yesterday I went for my training in how to crimp ethernet cables. Pretty simple, but I wouldn't have picked it up so easily from a book. My first plug crimp went perfectly, but my second one took 5 tries to get it right

Also went through some fire regs discussion. The main one seems to be that ethernet cables should be about 15cm away from electrical cabling, and both should be in conduit when in office space. I'll buy conduit locally - we're in East London so it shouldn't be too hard.

Cheers

PS: No I'm not going to do a wireless backbone through the floor. Thanks for the suggestion but forget about it. Please.

 

[Ramius]

For 30 users everything should be straightforward. Start - Programs - Administrative Tools and all you need should be there. Its usually a case of right clicking and following a wizard. Or double clicking and filling in stuff.

Wow, you suck.

 

[Les Kern]

No offense but you got a job to which you had no experience? I'd be a little nervous but getting in over my head

Not always the case. 16 years ago I was hired to take care of a network and 600 macs. I didn't even know what ETHERNET was. Within a a short time due to long hours, lots or reading and little sleep, I learned. Now it's grown to 30 servers, 1,200 macs, a WAN, GB switches, POE AP's... it CAN be done.

 

[Consultant]

PS: No I'm not going to do a wireless backbone through the floor. Thanks for the suggestion but forget about it. Please.

It can be better and faster than the powerline adapter.

But ideally you would hire someone to run real cable between the floor if you can.

 

[RandomKamikaze]

As most have said, run a gigabit trunk between the switches for good communication. None of this wirelss or EoP rubbish.

In terms of updates and WSUS. Get WSUS free from MS and configure a GPO to control what happens with updates.

Then its just a simple case of approving the updates.

Also check what other GPO's are in place and considering implementing some sort of security if you don't have any.

Have you decided how you will be connecting in the remote offices yet? Obviously a site-to-site VPN, but will you be terminating on the Cisco equipment or will you be getting something like ISA to do that?

 

[RedTomato]

All the hardware except the router's arrived.

Spent yesterday making a start on the cabling. Jesus, what a mess. Ethernet, power cables, telephone cables all mixed up on the floor. Ethernet cables strapped to powerlines strapped to hot heating pipes. Jesus.

Put in 2 inch wide trunking around the perimeter of the upstairs floor to take all the ethernet and telephone cables. Left power lines on floor to be put in separate trunking later. As this is an old building, there's about 4 wall power sockets supplying 10 desks. It's a mess of extension cables under desks everywhere.

Mounted the upstairs 24 port switch vertically on the wall behind the boss's chair. (best location on floor to save on having to run an extra 20x10m cable)

Took the rackmount brackets and turned them through 90 degrees for vertical mounting. The screws for attaching the rackmount brackets to the switch are tiny, only about 3mm from head to tail. Stripped two, wasn't happy with the others, so replaced with hard drive mounting screws. Tight, but switch still wobbles in the rackmount brackets. At least it won't fall on the boss's head, as it was threatening to do with the original screws. I might superglue the rack brackets to stop the wobble.

Gigabit cable in place now between ground floor and upstairs. Will mount downstairs switch next week.

Got a topology problem, see my next post.

 

[RandomKamikaze]

Next post?

 

[OZMP]

i couldnt get a mac job so now i am doing a traineeship at IBM
work where ever you have to too pay the bills, use apple stuff at home

oh, and try some silicon(one that sets solid) in the screw holes if it is the one on the blade and not on the rack(eg, you cant use another one) silicon method worked to fix some shelves in the shed years ago.

 

[belvdr]

I would look for better screws rather than superglue personally. In my experience, doing it right the first time will only help you down the road (say for a replacement switch if it should fail).

What's this topology problem you are having?

 

[locust76]

Ok. First of all, being a network administrator myself, Windows Domain management and network administration are entirely different areas.

Since you're starting with layer two networking hardware (switches), I suggest you avoid CCNA books and read up on some CCENT material. Cisco broke CCNA into two parts, the first of which is CCENT. There you will learn the absolute fundamentals of networking. None of that domain admin crap, but actually how data is packaged from the application and the entire process until it gets put on the wire. You will also learn what hubs really are, why they are bad, and why a switched layer two LAN is the best way to go.

Subnetting, subnetting, subnetting. If you don't know what a subnet is or how to calculate IP ranges and convert from binary to decimal and back, you should probably start doing it. I understand the LAN will be small at the moment, but if it ever grows beyond the 253 host limit for a class C network, you will need to subnet. Oh yeah, learn what Class A, B and C networks are.

From there you will learn about switching logic, physical addressing, broadcasting, multicasting and unicasting. In addition to that, some basic
routing information is included as well.

Even though I say "basic," it's A LOT OF INFORMATION. My CCENT book from Ciscopress has to be about 500-600 pages (left it at work, so I cant tell you an exact #).

Unfortunately, you opted for non-Cisco switches. I'm sure other brands are just fine, but the wealth of configuration knowledge in the Cisco books is geared towards Cisco IOS-based equipment. My company is migrating to 100% Cisco devices. We used to have HP Procurve switches and they died on a regular basis. We've had Cisco for about 5 years now without a single one (out of currently around 40) failing. Our core switches have been up for 266+ days straight (since the last firmware update) without a single service interruption, though I would like to bring them down for a firmware update some day.

DON'T do:
Wireless connections between floors
Ethernet-over-power
or any other silly idea like that. Use copper Cat-5e wiring at the bare minimum, or fiber optic if those switches can take SFPs.

DO do:
Read
Study
Learn
SUBNET

All of this fundamental knowledge will make you a much better network administrator, because nothing is as embarrassing as not knowing how to effectively do what it is that you're getting paid to do, or having to redo everything in the future because you screwed it up the first time. Every time I look into one of our network cabinets I have to undo some stupid crap that my pre-predecessor did when he was fumbling around with only a half-idea of what he was doing.

In this regard, you're damn lucky you're only starting with two switches and a router. That's really basic and you will be able to get it up and running without too much in-depth knowledge or troubleshooting. When I started as a network admin at my company, I was given a full-on network made of 40 switches, two routers, hundreds of hosts, a few dozen VLANs, a 34 megabit WAN link and a VPN running over that WAN link to our satellite sites in several dozen other countries, as well as 6 or 7 Wi-Fi access points on the factory floor, with a new wing being built on. In the next month or two, I have been in planning stages with my supervisor for redoing the entire core of our network, essentially ripping out our core switches and replacing it with entirely different hardware.

 

[locust76]

Baleeted

 

[belvdr]

essentially ripping out our core switches and replacing it with entirely different hardware.

Word to the wise, since you're going all Cisco, is to get a modular switch, such as the 6500 series, and use dual supervisors. You can then do rolling IOS upgrades with little to no downtime.

 

[RedTomato]

Thanks Locust76, and yes I already know a little about some of the networking fundamentals, the various layers that go into making a network packet datagram, and the differences between Class A, B and C sub networks. It isn't too difficult. It's the whole Microsoft Server software and domain control and setting policies that's entirely new to me.

We're unlikely to go over 253 addresses, tho thanks for the heads up, as at the moment, including all staff, printers, laptops, various offices etc, we're unlikely to break 100 addresses. This is just after a major expansion, which is stressing the charity at the moment (and why I was hired).

OK, the toplogy problem, this is embarrassingly simple considering what I just said ...

Firstly, our current router is a simple Netgear D-link model, as the cash for the Cisco upgrade seems to be delayed.

The server and the switches and more and more of our computers are gigabit speed, but the router is only 100megabit. So I'm trying to figure out what's the best way to link them up. None of my networking books address this (probably rather common) situation, and my Google-fu is failing me.

This is the current set-up:

So everything goes through the 100mb router, and it seems to be slowing down the network.

Now, I understand the switches (24 port gigabit) cache a routing table. From that, it seems they don't really need to be directly connected to the router, and our wired network is going to be quite static. So I wonder if this topology is workable:

Here, there is a full gigabit connection from the server to switch 1 (where most of the computers with gigabit ethernet are). Switch 2 has to share the server link with switch 1, but should still be better than a 100mb link.

The ADSL modem is low bandwidth (about 12mbit down and 4mbit up) at the moment) so switch 1 should be able to deal with passing on the traffic from it.

There's also a picture of a sample network that looks like this in one of my microsoft books (!) but nothing about it in the text.

Finally, is it possible to give each switch its own gigabit connection to the server? I have two ports on the server, so:

- if the computers linked to switch 1 are given server address 1, and the computers linked to switch 2 are given server address 2,

- and switch 2 is linked to switch 1 for internet access, and to give upstairs access to printers downstairs and vice versa, we get the following diagram:

Now, this looks like a loop, and every networking book will say OH NOES no loops, but as the two server ports have different addresses, I'm not sure if it's really a loop.

The server has 3 drives: 1 system; and 2 data in RAID 1 mirrored (plus external backup), so in theory it could saturate a single gigabit link, which is why I'm considering dual gigabit ethernet links.

Thoughts as to which is best? I don't really want to get into complicated spanning loop networks - rather keep it simple for now.

 

[belvdr]

That second picture should work just fine, and I would recommend it over picture 1. If the server has a gigabit connection to Switch 1, and it is a gigabit link between Switch 1 and 2 you shouldn't have issues. When a network of this type expands further, you'd link the extra switches back to Switch 1, and keep the server there. Additionally, adding on further might require you to upgrade Switch 1 so it has more capability at handling the extra load. To be honest, you'll likely never see the need to do this on that particular network.

Switches do not cache routing tables, unless they are layer 3 capable switches and IP routing is enabled. As for loops in the network, that is only a concern when the network is looped together. Servers can be multihomed and as long as they are not bridging the connections together, all is well.

You could certainly multihome your server, but I doubt you'll see any added benefit for doing so. If doing this, you may run into issues with Active Directory as it seems to be tied heavily to the IP address. I can say that I have never seen that in use on any network I have been involved in.

 

[locust76]

Third pic:

That setup with the server looks a little funny. What's the purpose of that? Keep in mind, that the Hostname will be visible under two separate IP and MAC addresses, so that might cause confusion, especially with name lookups (Computer A says "Who is 'Server?'" and two separate MACs reply with totally different IPs). It's not a physical loop, per se, since the server has two unique MAC addresses, but logically it's kind of crazy and will most likely function accordingly. I kind of see that maybe you wanted to give both switches direct access to the server, but in order to actually pull that off, you'd have to have two separate networks (IP ranges) for each switch.

Second, since this is a small network, doesn't the ADSL modem have a built-in router? If so, you've got 3 separate networks there. One WAN (from ADSL to the ISP), one between the ADSL modem and the router and another between the switched layer 2 network and the router. That's extra layers of routing decisions that don't really seem too terribly necessary.

Second pic:

You will want to avoid daisy-chaining your switches like that, since all traffic coming out of switch two will have to go thru switch 1 and to the router, basically constraining your entire network to a single gigabit link out to the internet (and, of course, forcing switch 1 to handle switching decisions for packets from switch 2 to the internet). IF the router has more than one LAN port, I'd suggest going the extra mile and running a line from it to switch 2, though you probably have no choice, as many routers only have one LAN port.

First pic: I think this one is probably the best, most future-proof scenario, if it's feasible, though I wouldn't connect the server to the router because it probably only has 100mbit ports instead of gigabit. You'll kind of have to bite the bullet and put the server on switch 1 and force traffic from switch 2 to traverse switch 1 to get to the server (or get another smaller gigabit switch for servers and connect it directly to the router, again, if possible)

Actually, if you could, it might make sense to get a third gigabit switch to connect directly to the router and put the server and other two switches on that third switch. With that setup, you're 100% gigabit internally with a 100mb uplink to your outside line

 

[belvdr]

Third pic:

That setup with the server looks a little funny. What's the purpose of that? Keep in mind, that the Hostname will be visible under two separate IP and MAC addresses, so that might cause confusion, especially with name lookups (Computer A says "Who is 'Server?'" and two separate MACs reply with totally different IPs). It's not a physical loop, per se, since the server has two unique MAC addresses, but logically it's kind of crazy and will most likely function accordingly. I kind of see that maybe you wanted to give both switches direct access to the server, but in order to actually pull that off, you'd have to have two separate networks (IP ranges) for each switch.

Second, since this is a small network, doesn't the ADSL modem have a built-in router? If so, you've got 3 separate networks there. One WAN (from ADSL to the ISP), one between the ADSL modem and the router and another between the switched layer 2 network and the router. That's extra layers of routing decisions that don't really seem too terribly necessary.

There would only be confusion for the hostname lookups. As for "Who is Server", MAC addresses won't be the response. "Who is <IP>" (i.e. ARP who-has) would get a MAC address for a response, and since both NICs would have different IPs, there would be no confusion. Of course, having the same IP on both NICs wouldn't work in any case.

Also, there's really no routing decisions here. It's a simple default gateway network: either it is local or send it to the next hop. But I agree, the less units in the mix the better.

Second pic:

You will want to avoid daisy-chaining your switches like that, since all traffic coming out of switch two will have to go thru switch 1 and to the router, basically constraining your entire network to a single gigabit link out to the internet (and, of course, forcing switch 1 to handle switching decisions for packets from switch 2 to the internet). IF the router has more than one LAN port, I'd suggest going the extra mile and running a line from it to switch 2, though you probably have no choice, as many routers only have one LAN port.

I strongly disagree. All enterprise networks have a MDF with a switch capable of handling the load to the WAN and between the IDFs. The heavier load will be between Switch 1 and 2 for access to the server. In this case, Switch 1 most likely has more switching horsepower than a simple router. After all, switches were designed to switch, and routers to route.

Since the WAN link is ADSL, then it is very likely a 100Mb link to the router is more than sufficient.

First pic: I think this one is probably the best, most future-proof scenario, if it's feasible, though I wouldn't connect the server to the router because it probably only has 100mbit ports instead of gigabit. You'll kind of have to bite the bullet and put the server on switch 1 and force traffic from switch 2 to traverse switch 1 to get to the server (or get another smaller gigabit switch for servers and connect it directly to the router, again, if possible)

I'm not sure I gather what you're trying to say. Just leave the server on switch 1 or 2 and let the users have at it. I'm not sure why adding another switch is being considered just for the server. Additionally, he/she said the router is 100Mb. Why do you want to constrain the links to both switches to 100Mb when you have gigabit already available?

Actually, if you could, it might make sense to get a third gigabit switch to connect directly to the router and put the server and other two switches on that third switch. With that setup, you're 100% gigabit internally with a 100mb uplink to your outside line

How's this different than what you're opposed to in the second pic? You said not to daisy chain the switches as people on Switch 2 will need to traverse switch 1 to get to the Internet, but now you're suggesting a third switch. Honestly, keep it simple: two switches and be done with it. The two switches already provide 100% gigabit internally with a 100Mb Internet link. Adding a third switch does absolutely nothing to enhance the network.

 

[Ap0k5]

Your 2nd picture is the method I'd use. It's almost identical to the setup I have at home.

Internet (20M) into Modem/Router (100M)
Modem/Router into Switch1 (1G)
Switch1 then splits off to Switch2 (which is upstairs also 1G), and various endpoints downstairs
Switch2 splits off to various endpoints upstairs

Everything works fine, no slowdowns when accessing content between switches, and the 100M link is plenty fast enough to cope with internet requests from devices on either switch.