|
Home > Archive > alt.certification.network-plus > January 2004 > peer to p network in a classroom - TCP/IP?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
peer to p network in a classroom - TCP/IP?
|
|
|
| in a prposed small peer to peer network , there are 2 'desks/tables' in a
classroom , each has 4 or 5 machines on it, I want to cable each group of 4
or 5 to a router, and attach the routers together via a cable to their
uplink ports (so one cable runs acroos the floor to the other table).
1.do I use cat 5 for the router to router (same cable as the machine's nic
to router)
2. is tcp/ip sufficient to do all the shares (files,folders and peripherals
or do i need netbeui too)? There is no internet connection right now. At a
later stage, one of the routers will be cabled to a high speed DSL modem for
internet access.
Machines are an assorted bunch of older IBM's with mostly Win98.
For the sake of the teacher having control, the ideal setup would have been
Server>Clients with Win2k server for the teacher and win2k pro for the
clients, but they cant afford the cost of this software agreement, nor the
machine upgrades. I hope to provide tamper proof workstations with a
'lockdown' program like DeepFreeze or Cleanslate (they 'restore' at each
reboot). The programs they want to teach the kids, will have to be installed
on each workstation (a pascal compiler, typing tutor, a database etc etc).
Is the described setup viable and/or can you provide further
insight/guidance?
| |
|
| Q1 - yes
Q2 - yes
Don't think you will need to rebuild for each use. Probably a couple times
a year should suffice. Just make a ghost image of each.
| |
| Morse 2004-01-03, 10:24 am |
|
Thank you.
I posted the same message on another group (24hr helpdesk) and the response
was that linking two routers via their uplink ports will create 2x networks
Not One ?And therefore limited sharing "across the tables"?
The suggestion was to use two switches instead and later when we want
internet access, connect one of the switches to a router to a modem. I had
always been under the impression, perhaps erroneously, that routers function
as switchess too?
================
> Q1 - yes
>
> Q2 - yes
>
> Don't think you will need to rebuild for each use. Probably a couple
times
> a year should suffice. Just make a ghost image of each.
>
>
| |
|
| ROLLOVER
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:03:01 -0500, "Morse" < ChiefInspector@ThamesValleyCID
.com> wrote:
>in a prposed small peer to peer network , there are 2 'desks/tables' in a
>classroom , each has 4 or 5 machines on it, I want to cable each group of 4
>or 5 to a router, and attach the routers together via a cable to their
>uplink ports (so one cable runs acroos the floor to the other table).
>
>1.do I use cat 5 for the router to router (same cable as the machine's nic
>to router)
>2. is tcp/ip sufficient to do all the shares (files,folders and peripherals
>or do i need netbeui too)? There is no internet connection right now. At a
>later stage, one of the routers will be cabled to a high speed DSL modem for
>internet access.
>
>Machines are an assorted bunch of older IBM's with mostly Win98.
>
>For the sake of the teacher having control, the ideal setup would have been
>Server>Clients with Win2k server for the teacher and win2k pro for the
>clients, but they cant afford the cost of this software agreement, nor the
>machine upgrades. I hope to provide tamper proof workstations with a
>'lockdown' program like DeepFreeze or Cleanslate (they 'restore' at each
>reboot). The programs they want to teach the kids, will have to be installed
>on each workstation (a pascal compiler, typing tutor, a database etc etc).
>
>Is the described setup viable and/or can you provide further
>insight/guidance?
>
>
>
| |
| ImhoTech 2004-01-05, 4:26 pm |
| Do you already have this equipment? There really isn't any need for two
router unless you do want to create separate networks or subnets. Not
neccesarily a bad thing for a learning environment, but not neccesary for
the network you indcate you want. Cheapest route (no pun intended) would be
two switches, then add a router when routing is neccesary. A switch is a
switch, a router is a router, a router doesn't function as a switch. The
device you have in mind is a combination unit, a router with a built in
switch.
"Morse" < ChiefInspector@ThamesValleyCID
.com> wrote in message
news:g3AJb.19707$Vl6.3674761@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>
> Thank you.
> I posted the same message on another group (24hr helpdesk) and the
response
> was that linking two routers via their uplink ports will create 2x
networks
> Not One ?And therefore limited sharing "across the tables"?
> The suggestion was to use two switches instead and later when we want
> internet access, connect one of the switches to a router to a modem. I had
> always been under the impression, perhaps erroneously, that routers
function
> as switchess too?
>
> ================
> times
>
>
| |
|
|
this is the way i'm going to go:
a switch on each of two tables with 4 or 5 machines on each table. The
switches cabled together. Later when we want internet access, then cable
each switch to a router and the router to a modem and the modem to an
incoming line.
I could use some help with which cables & which ports ?
> Do you already have this equipment? There really isn't any need for two
> router unless you do want to create separate networks or subnets. Not
> neccesarily a bad thing for a learning environment, but not neccesary for
> the network you indcate you want. Cheapest route (no pun intended) would
be
> two switches, then add a router when routing is neccesary. A switch is a
> switch, a router is a router, a router doesn't function as a switch. The
> device you have in mind is a combination unit, a router with a built in
> switch.
>
> "Morse" < ChiefInspector@ThamesValleyCID
.com> wrote in message
> news:g3AJb.19707$Vl6.3674761@news20.bellglobal.com...
> response
> networks
had[color=blue]
> function
>
>
| |
| ImhoTech 2004-01-06, 10:24 am |
|
"Morse" < ChiefInspector@ThamesValleyCID
.com> wrote in message
news:OfoKb.4639$k_.559428@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> this is the way i'm going to go:
> a switch on each of two tables with 4 or 5 machines on each table. The
> switches cabled together. Later when we want internet access, then cable
> each switch to a router and the router to a modem and the modem to an
> incoming line.
> I could use some help with which cables & which ports ?
>
If your switches have uplink ports the only cabliong you'll need is standard
CAT 5 cables in whatever your desired lenths are. You mention 4 or 5
machines, buy 8 port switches. Almost anything you buy today will have an
uplink port, usually switchable from standard to uplink.
Assuming you do buy 8 port switches the first seven ports will be used for
computer, port 8 will typically be the switchable uplink port, cable the
uplink post from this first switch to port 1 on the the second switch, ports
2 through 7 will be available for computers, port 8 again being the uplink
port and reserved to link to your router when purchased.
| |
|
|
>
> If your switches have uplink ports the only cabliong you'll need is
standard
> CAT 5 cables in whatever your desired lenths are. You mention 4 or 5
> machines, buy 8 port switches. Almost anything you buy today will have an
> uplink port, usually switchable from standard to uplink.
>
> Assuming you do buy 8 port switches the first seven ports will be used for
> computer, port 8 will typically be the switchable uplink port, cable the
> uplink post from this first switch to port 1 on the the second switch,
ports
> 2 through 7 will be available for computers, port 8 again being the uplink
> port and reserved to link to your router when purchased.
>
so it doesnt go uplink port to uplink port - but rather uplink port to a
standard port?
And isnt it better to take a cable from each switch to the router rather
than from only one switch ?
| |
| ImhoTech 2004-01-09, 10:25 am |
|
"Morse" < ChiefInspector@ThamesValleyCID
.com> wrote in message
news:QbnLb.79573$BA6.1676402@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
cable[color=blue]
> standard
an[color=blue]
for[color=blue]
> ports
uplink[color=blue]
>
> so it doesnt go uplink port to uplink port - but rather uplink port to a
> standard port?
That's correct, just consider it standard practice, up-link to uplink could
work, either with a standard cable as long as one port was switched to
standard, or with a crossover cable if both ports were switched to uplink.
Add to the new switches with autosensing up link ports and it doesn't matter
much.
>
> And isnt it better to take a cable from each switch to the router rather
> than from only one switch ?
>
>
The could be an advantage, But the router wouldn't be a neccesary purchase
until want to add the Internet access. You might cable the switches together
initially, taking into consideration the future location of the router and
buy your cable accordingly (so that when you purchase the router you only
need buy one cable, have your cable between switches of a length that it
could also reach the router, you can test both configurations yourself.)
|
|
|
|
|