Need help with LAN center network.

[matt fury]

OK, so, due to the untimely failure of another local LAN center, I now have a 7-computer mini-LAN to put into my soon-to-be-open gaming store. I know my way around a basic network, and I managed another LAN center for 6 months, but I'm definitely not a hardcore networking guy, so I'm having a little trouble figuring out what would be appropriate. I have a basic idea, but I could really use any suggestions or advice I could get. Here's what I have in mind:

There are about 7 client machines and 1 "server" for the commercial lan, plus at least 2 machines that I will use for my own business/private use. Expandibility would be nice, but it's something I could figure out when it comes up, if I have to. I haven't even firmed up what kind of internet connection I'll have, but odds are it will be cable. So I figured:

Cable modem -> Router/Firewall -> Switch -> gaming machines
-> Wireless access point -> business machines

Pretty simple, but do you think it's sufficient? Plus, I was now thinking that it might be necessary to isolate the business machines from the gaming network. But 1 or 2 of those business machines might theoretically be used on the gaming LAN on occasion, so would perhaps another firewall inbetween the switch & WAP be appropriate?

My bigger questions is what would be appropriate for the networking hardware. It doesn't seem that rough to pick out a quality 10/100 switch that can handle the load, but I'm not sure about the router. Whereas I'm not really going to be running a place where CS teams come in and scrim all day, I've already had some interest from one or two teams, and from what I gather, pro-CS is extremely lag-sensitive. So what kind of router hardware do you think would keep lag down without breaking the bank? Could something like a Linux box running FREESCO handle that sort of traffic? Cisco the only way to go? This is my biggest grey-area...topology I can figure out, I just don't have the experience with the heavy duty routers.

Thanks in advance for any help you can lend...I'd be more than happy to give out some free "hours" to anyone that helps out.. lol

 

[Orinthical]

For 9 PC's on a cable modem you do not need a Cisco router, I'll tell you that right there. I have eight systems running in my house performing various tasks, some network intensive, 24/7.

You -could- get by with a consumer level router such as a Netgear WGR614 or WGR108 (since you want wireless) or you could go with a linux based router if you have an older machine laying around. That part is up to you but you do not need to spend thousands here, trust me. If you were going to go T1, T3+ then we'd talk Cisco.

For security purposes I'd say either setup a IPCop/Smoothwall box up with a Red, Green and Orange interface or implement two consumer level routers. If you go with a linux based/old-box solution then you can implement a green an orange network and use the green (normal) interface for your LAN while using the orange (which by default is the DMZ on most distros but you could secure it) for your business systems either wired or wireless with the help of an external WAP.

Realistically, I'd say go wired GigE for it all unless you specfically need wireless for your business systems.

Get a nice GigE switch, one or two consumer grade routers and be happy.

Or even better yet;

Have your cable ISP provide two IP's (generally a nominal extra monthly fee) and have the cable modem plugged into a mini-switch (switch! not hub! =) then two runs to each of the routers, one for your business and one for the gaming lan.

Just keep in mind that most cable ISP's provide about 3Mbps and use a 10Mbps interface at the modem. Putting a mega-buck Cisco router there is simply a waste of money -- spend it on getting GigE cards for all the machines and good patch cables. =)

 

[phatrabt]

Realistically, I'd say go wired GigE for it all unless you specfically need wireless for your business systems.

Get a nice GigE switch, one or two consumer grade routers and be happy.

Or even better yet;

Have your cable ISP provide two IP's (generally a nominal extra monthly fee) and have the cable modem plugged into a mini-switch (switch! not hub! =) then two runs to each of the routers, one for your business and one for the gaming lan.

Just keep in mind that most cable ISP's provide about 3Mbps and use a 10Mbps interface at the modem. Putting a mega-buck Cisco router there is simply a waste of money -- spend it on getting GigE cards for all the machines and good patch cables. =)

I'm with Orinthical on this one. Unless you're running a Frac-T or higher I don't really think you need a Cisco router. His suggestion above about using two OTS routers (the gaming one uplinked to a Gig-e switch) and 2 static IP's is exactly what I was thinking of. That way your gaming traffic is COMPLETELY separate from your work\personal traffic. Just my $.02

 

[valve1138]

Freesco works quite well, I've used it in high traffic situations before, like 600 students in at a College pounding on it. So if you wanted to you could use it, or just by a ready to bake router like the one's mentioned before.

I would go with two seperate routers/networks. Just to be safe, you never know who you'll have on the gaming LAN and what they might want to do.

Personally I don't think you need GigE in this case, even if you exapnd the gaming LAN I would think that a 100Mbps network would be just fine. But then again, I have a GigE network in my house, so if you have the cash why not

 

[matt fury]

Thanks for the tips. The dual network thing seems like a good way to handle everything, but does it allow for, say, a computer on one side of the network to join a LAN game with computers from the seperate network?

Also, I'm more than happy not spending the money for heavy duty hardware, but what makes a T1 connection any different from a high-speed cable connection as far as what we're talking about goes? Doesn't it all just come down to what speeds you're getting?

Gig-E would be great, but I totally slept through that Dell sale last week , and I don't particularly have the cash to blow on the equipment if it's not necessary. I don't plan on moving a lot of data across the network - is there another big benefit I'm missing? My only reason for wireless for my business end is that the computers will be fairly spread out, and that's one less cable to run acorss the floor.

 

[Orinthical]

Thanks for the tips. The dual network thing seems like a good way to handle everything, but does it allow for, say, a computer on one side of the network to join a LAN game with computers from the seperate network?

If the LAN machines were on a seperate network using the below topology, it would not really be possible for you to join a game on Router2 from Router1 because they would each have seperate internet addresses. It might be possible however to forward the game servers' port through Router2 to the external IP.

Once you do this then the game server would be visible to the outside world as well though. No problem -- put a password on it, etc. Then you could have a machine from Router1 connect to the external IP of Router2 to join the game. The router would forward requests at xxxxx port to the machine hosting the game. Might add 1 or 2 ms for your business machines but it would probably work just fine and you'd still have your business machines secure.

CableModem --> Switch --> Router1/IP1 --- > Business
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;--> Router2/IP2 --- > LAN systems

Also, I'm more than happy not spending the money for heavy duty hardware, but what makes a T1 connection any different from a high-speed cable connection as far as what we're talking about goes? Doesn't it all just come down to what speeds you're getting?

The big difference is that a cable modem costs about $50 USD a month (ymmv) and a T-1 will run about 400-600 usually depending solely on the provider. You can get them around here for about $500 a month but if you're in a more rural place, it may cost double or even triple that depending.

The actual difference is that a T-1 is 1.54Mbps up/down 100% of the time. It's a direct connection to a Tier1 provider -- such as AT&T, Worldcom or UUNET provided by your local carrier. You will need specialized equipment to handle it (Cisco) but it is more reliable and consistent than Cable or DSL.

And reliability is the key selling point -- the only reason a T1 will go down is if the line is cut or one of the backbones in your area goes down... which in that case, chances are most people are going to be out as well. Furthermore, alot of places will guarantee x-hour repairs if something should happen to your connection on a line somewhere... where with a cable ISP or DSL you may have to wait a few days to get back up and running.

Basically, a T1 would be great if you're going to run a server that others connect to via the internet but is -not- needed for small business or basic LAN gaming. Especially when they are connected to an internal server -- which wouldn't even utilize the T1.

Save yourself the cash and go with a cable modem for now. If you find yourself needing the dedicated connection then you can always upgrade later.

Gig-E would be great, but I totally slept through that Dell sale last week , and I don't particularly have the cash to blow on the equipment if it's not necessary. I don't plan on moving a lot of data across the network - is there another big benefit I'm missing? My only reason for wireless for my business end is that the computers will be fairly spread out, and that's one less cable to run acorss the floor.

GigE is not necessary for what you're going to be doing --- I simply recommended it because I figured if you're going to be buying all this stuff, you may as well go with the latest technology. =) But if you've already got FastE stuff, no need to upgrade just for the sake of upgrading... yet. hehe

If you're going to run wireless for your business end -please- make sure you secure the blasted thing. hehe -- I'd recommend you implement an ACL on the router as well as run WEP128/WPA-PSK.

The WGR614 router from Netgear is what I'm running here at the house --- it has nice range/penetration for a single antennae device and quite nice speed for a 54G device. One of the nicer points I've noticed is that unlike previous wireless routers I've used, using both wired and wireless modes at once doesn't effect performance... or at least, if it does - it is not noticable. It also supports all the features that I named above for your wireless end -- but then again so do quite a few other consumer routers out there. I won't say 'most' because quite a few routers out there are still waiting for firmware revisions to fix/enable WPA-PSK or ACL's.

If you want the hybrid A/G 108mbps wireless stuff you can go for the WGR108, but that's up to you. If you're only going to have two or three wireless systems on the network, I'd say just go for the WGR614 and save some cash.

I would encourage you to consider a wired solution at least once more though because despite WEP128, WPA-PSK and an router implemented ACL, you are still not safe. You may be safe from the average jo and the average hacker, but a good one would know how to cut right through that stuff. =)

Unless the wire runs would have to excessively long, you'll be ultimately safer going wired.

 

[matt fury]

OK..I'm going to play around with my layout a bit and the wiring, I'm sure it won't be that hard to reasonably wire the network. I'm not used to thinking in a "business" mode as far as security goes, so thanks for reminding me a little.

I have seen what a difference there is between cable & T1. The LAN center I used to manage had a higher-end business cable connection at first, and it really didn't work well. Ping times weren't that great, and the service was constantly out. They were running about 30 computers and two CS servers, though. Down the road we switched to a $450/mo T1, and it was a lot nicer...especially as far as uptime went. I definitely can't afford a T1 for 7 computers, nor do I particularly want to. My question is more of, why would I need better routing hardware if I had a T1 compared to, say, a $150 cable connection?

 

[Darkstar850]

Very few consumer or even small business class routers have any sort of T1 interface. That is why alot of people end up using Cisco gear if they want to have a T1.
However, some areas are now offering metro ethernet connections, that could allow you to run a T1 connection on just a good SOHO router.
That might be an interesting option

 

[Orinthical]

Dark hit the nail on the head already; most residential or consumer grade routers don't have a T-1 interface available on them... in fact I don't know of any that do, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

The metro-ethernet option he presented though is interesting and if that's the case, or the T1 comes in ethernet form, you'd probably be able to get by with a off-the-shelf router.

$39-59 versus $300 to $1500+ for a Cisco still isn't worth it when you're just starting out though in my opinion anyway. When you get to the point where you want to get a T-1 and are ready to spend $450+/mo, you should have the money for a T-1 'capable' router anyhow. =)

As long as your area offers decent business cable or dsl options, you should be fine though.

What speeds are they offering in your area and from which company?

 

[matt fury]

Unfortunately I am too far away for DSL, and can't really afford a T1, so I'm stuck with Cox Cable. 4 down/768 up for $170/mo. =/ Unfortunately, it seems as if that's the best I'll be able to do. Current plan looks like:

Cable > switch > freesco router > switch > gaming lan
xxxxxxxxxxxx > OTS router > business machines

How does that sound?