Route Between Networks

W

Wick3ed

n00b
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
19
Wondering if I can get some help on this subject?
We have Network A currently that utilizes IP range 192.168.0.1 - 192.168.0.254 on subnet 255.255.255.0. This network is getting over ran with IP devices that monitor flow and other variables for plant operation. This network has SBS 2003 running and is the domain controller. Now I'm setting up a new SBS 2011 to run as a domain controller and would like to make that Network B with a IP address of 192.168.50.1 - 192.168.50.254 on subnet 255.255.255.0. When I get the new SBS 2011 up and running and everyone moved over (45 users) the old SBS 2003 will only be a file server nothing more.
The issue I'm having trouble with is how can I make Network B talk to the IP devices on network A? Would I need a router for this or can I do some routing within the new SBS or old one?
The IP address are different but the subnet are the same does this mean I'm on the same network?
I'm a windows guy (MCSA, MCITP, MCST, and A+) with little to no networking experience but would like to get some. Would N+ be the best place to start or ?

Thank you for your time.
 
The issue I'm having trouble with is how can I make Network B talk to the IP devices on network A?

OK

Would I need a router for this or can I do some routing within the new SBS or old one?

A router will do this, or almost any Layer 3 managed switch

The IP address are different but the subnet are the same does this mean I'm on the same network? No.

If you are not having any problems with traffic you could always change your DNS and DHCP and use a /23 subnet. "255.255.254.0"

That would give you 192.168.0.1-192.168.1.254 as your usable network range with 512 addresses. You also wouldn't need a router or any additional equipment, all you would need to do is change the settings on your DHCP/DNS box.

N+ would be a good place to start. I'd recommend Michael Meyers N+ book for concepts, and Todd Lammie's CCENT guide for meat and potatoes know how. N+ and CCENT cover most of the same meterial. with CCENT being considered a little more advanced.
 
"If you are not having any problems with traffic you could always change your DNS and DHCP and use a /23 subnet. "255.255.254.0""
Yes I'm seeing some slow down from time to time.Would changing the subnet to /23 speed up the network or would only a router do this?
The reason I went with 192.168.50.0 is that 192.168.0.0 and 192.168.1.0 is being used for IP devices. On the 192.168.0.0 there is about 75-80 PLC's, Flow monitors, Vibration monitors, few IP camera's. On 192.168.1.0 There is about 30 PLC's and 2 IP camera's. 192.168.0.0 was originally the server network but IP devices took over the subnet and I thought when I was building the new server I would just move to 192.168.50.0. Is there a better IP range I should look at?
My goal is to move the SBS 2011 to a different network but still be able to talk to some of the devices on the other networks.
What routers or layer 3 switches would you recommend for this?
 
Mackintire said:
If you are not having any problems with traffic you could always change your DNS and DHCP and use a /23 subnet. "255.255.254.0"

That would give you 192.168.0.1-192.168.1.254 as your usable network range with 512 addresses. You also wouldn't need a router or any additional equipment, all you would need to do is change the settings on your DHCP/DNS box.
Click to expand...

Don't forget he would also need to change any devices with static ip addresses to the new subnet. But I agree, changing the subnet to a larger subnet, would probably be the easiest overall option. Aside from that, as he said, you could get a simple router to route between different networks.

You can think of a subnet as a boundary line. It determines the range at which the devices can talk or the number of ip addresses they can talk with. The lower the subnet number, the more hosts or ip addresses can communicate within the subnet. For a quick breakdown of how ip addresses and subnetting works you can check this link:

http://www.subnetting.net/Tutorial.aspx
 
I've used PLC monitoring devices serial emulators and video equipment before. Most of the devices were 10/100 based. Placing them in their own VLAN might be an option.

Is your network running on gigabit switches? Which ones, brands and models?

There are multiple ways to deal with traffic issues, when we had equipment such as your, our primary problem was broadcast traffic. We solved that using multiple subnets inside larger DHCP scope. There are many ways to solve the issues you are seeing. Understanding the conditions is important part in determining the best course of action.

Routed VLans
multiple subnets
larger DHCP scopes

are all tools that you can use.
 
Mackintire,

I have 3 Cisco SG 300-28P switches.

I'm sorry for all the questions but would I be able to prioritize traffic with the Vlans?
 
They are layer 3 switches aren't they?

Yes you can prioritize traffic using vlans.
 
Jay_oasis said:
They are layer 3 switches aren't they?

Yes you can prioritize traffic using vlans.
Click to expand...

:eek:

Just to be clear, VLANs are for separating traffic, they do not prioritize traffic by themselves. You need to use QoS to prioritize traffic and may or may not use VLAN tagging to do it. You can also affect traffic priority through routing. You can create direct routes for priority voice traffic and secondary routes for all other traffic. This is usually done using VLAN tags, but VLANs on their own do not prioritize. A VLAN is an answer to separating networks and broadcast traffic. It may improve traffic for you simply by cutting out more cross traffic. Any traffic from devices that does not need to talk to each other should typically be put on separate VLANs (IE voice from data, or management traffic from data traffic).

Here is a fairly good page that talks about VLANs and their use:

http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cis788-97/ftp/virtual_lans/index.htm

edit:
According to Cisco those switches are L3 and do support VLAN tagging and looks like they even have some QoS features.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps10898/data_sheet_c78-610061.html
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Wick3ed said:
I found this http://ithelpblog.com/network/cisco/howto-create-and-configure-vlan-on-cisco-sg300-series-switch/

and watching this on youtube right now https://www.youtube.com/results?sea...83.1.1.0...0.0...1ac.2.11.youtube.Wuw838_5lCI

Correct me if I'm wrong I set up 3 Vlans then get a router to be able to talk between the 3 networks?

Company will buy a router what one should I be looking at? mid range in price :)

Oh and found this to test things out http://www.mediafire.com/download/nqdoh5b84naw69y/PacketTracer533_setup_no_tutorials.exe
Click to expand...

You can do Inter-VLAN routing on the SG-300 alone without a router. Here is a good post on how to do that:

http://blog.songwang.org/?p=10
 
NoOther said:
:eek:

Just to be clear, VLANs are for separating traffic, they do not prioritize traffic by themselves.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they actually prioritized traffic I just said they can be used to prioritize traffic.

Its one of the key factors in sticking VoIP traffic on a voice VLAN and using COS

:eek:
 
Last edited:
Jay_oasis said:
I didn't say they actually prioritized traffic I just said they can be used to prioritize traffic.

Its one of the key factors in sticking VoIP traffic on a voice VLAN

:eek:
Click to expand...

I realize that was probably your intention, which is why I edited my post a bit, but for someone like the OP who says they are a novice at networking it may not be clear. Just trying to clear it up. I have seen people create VLANs and expect them to automatically prioritize their traffic just because they used lower VLAN numbers for the traffic they wanted to have the highest priority. Just wanted to make sure the OP understood, that more work would be needed than just setting up the VLANs if they wanted to prioritize traffic.
 
NoOther said:
I realize that was probably your intention, which is why I edited my post a bit, but for someone like the OP who says they are a novice at networking it may not be clear. Just trying to clear it up. I have seen people create VLANs and expect them to automatically prioritize their traffic just because they used lower VLAN numbers for the traffic they wanted to have the highest priority. Just wanted to make sure the OP understood, that more work would be needed than just setting up the VLANs if they wanted to prioritize traffic.
Click to expand...

Thats a fair point. ;)

Once you start VLANing you can't stop, I even have 5 at home! We have hundreds in our corp network
 
Jay_oasis said:
Thats a fair point. ;)

Once you start VLANing you can't stop, I even have 5 at home! We have hundreds in our corp network
Click to expand...

Yup, I have a VLAN for my N wireless devices, a VLAN for my A/B/G wireless devices, a VLAN for guest wireless, a VLAN for my gaming systems, a VLAN for my general purpose systems, and a VLAN for my servers/storage. Plus a few subnetted networks, 2 firewalls, QoS, a DMZ, honeypot, etc.
 
Dumb question. Why completely reinvent the wheel? Why not a migration from 2003 to 2011? Given that you mentioned being a Windows guy, I'm sure there's a reason, Clean-up, I'm assuming.
 
Grab a crappy computer, slap 2 intel NICs inside and install pfsense. You can do everything you are talking about with it and it will cost you very close to $0.
 
no but I just think "Grab a crappy computer" may not be the best business policy.
 
Jay_oasis said:
no but I just think "Grab a crappy computer" may not be the best business policy.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure PensFault was referring to the specs of the machine, not the build quality.

Grab an Atom or AMD E350 based computer with a pair of Intel NICs and put PFsense on it.
 
Personally I wouldn't do that but that is just personal preference. You are correct that you can get very very good performance from PFSense on an atom PC at a fraction of the cost of a cisco router.
 
Thank you for the suggestion PensFault but company policy we can't use any opensource products here at work.

I've been doing some research and thinking about doing a router on a stick with 3 Vlans. 1 on the 192.168.50.0, 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.0.0 network. I've been looking at routers and there is a ton out there. I already have 3 Cisco SG 300-28P switches does any one have a suggestion on the router? I would need one with 2 ports, correct?
or should I just do the Inter-VLAN routing with the SG 300?

I would like to do this right the fist time but not sure what is the best way to go??

Thank you for all your input on this!!
 
I would use your L3 switches to be honest, if not maybe a 1841 or a 1941 depending on what kind of throughput you need between the VLANs
 
Best option is probably using your L3 switch then although I can't say I have ever used that model myself.
 
L3 switches are much faster at intervlan routing than a router on a stick is.
 
I agree, use your current switches.

You have everything you need to do the job currently, except knowing how to set it up. Google and the guys here can help you.
 
Thank you for all your input I will do some heavy research this weekend on using my switches :D
 
ok mate, if you do decide router on a stick then I could help with the cisco configs and ACLs if needed. I've done a few cisco router setups in my time :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top