|
Posted by MedV Imaging Inc on July 16, 2006, 11:19 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
I have about 10 buildings, each has about 20 PC need to connect to
Internet.
I plan to buy a fiber (1000M/100M) from the ISP. Because of the budget,
I need to have the lowest cost to connect all the PC to internet. Can
anybody give me any information for me?
Thank you.
Eric He
|
 
| |
Posted by Al Dykes on July 16, 2006, 11:43 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>I have about 10 buildings, each has about 20 PC need to connect to
>Internet.
>
>I plan to buy a fiber (1000M/100M) from the ISP. Because of the budget,
>I need to have the lowest cost to connect all the PC to internet. Can
>anybody give me any information for me?
>
>Thank you.
>
>Eric He
>
Read the terms of service for the package you're buying and consider
if you are going to connect anything they consider a server to the
outside world. the number of PCs and bandwidth are not the issue.
Redistributing bandwidth to other businesses, for example, may not be
allowed.
Verizon will deliver a 50MB/sec fiber to my home but they won't allow
me to run a "server" which in practice means something on port 80 but
if I put it on port 81 and they catch me they are within their rights
to cut me off.
That would suck if I was running a business on the server.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
|
|
Posted by glen herrmannsfeldt on July 17, 2006, 1:22 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Al Dykes wrote:
(someone wrote)
>>I plan to buy a fiber (1000M/100M) from the ISP. Because of the budget,
>>I need to have the lowest cost to connect all the PC to internet. Can
>>anybody give me any information for me?
> Read the terms of service for the package you're buying and consider
> if you are going to connect anything they consider a server to the
> outside world. the number of PCs and bandwidth are not the issue.
> Redistributing bandwidth to other businesses, for example, may not be
> allowed.
The OP posted from Australia, which may have very different subscriber
agreements than other countries. As for the original question...
If the PCs don't all belong to the same company, and probably even if
they do, you should have separate subnets for each building, which
requires a router. There are home/small office routers with 100baseTX
WAN port, but I don't know of any with 1000baseX WAN port yet.
If you do want a 1000baseX uplink, you might consider a unix/linux
machine running as a router. For more details you might try
comp.dcom.lans.tcp-ip, as once you need a router you are out of
the usual topic for this group.
-- glen
|
|
Posted by Walter Roberson on July 17, 2006, 1:31 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>they do, you should have separate subnets for each building, which
>requires a router. There are home/small office routers with 100baseTX
>WAN port, but I don't know of any with 1000baseX WAN port yet.
If it is fibre, a media convertor might suffice instead of
a WAN port.
On the other hand, if security or QoS or shaping turns out to
be needed then it might turn out that the easiest approach is
to use something like a layer 3 switch, and depending on the
feature set and model, an appropriate GBIC or SFP slot might
already be there.
|
|
Posted by glen herrmannsfeldt on July 19, 2006, 4:13 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Walter Roberson wrote:
>>they do, you should have separate subnets for each building, which
>>requires a router. There are home/small office routers with 100baseTX
>>WAN port, but I don't know of any with 1000baseX WAN port yet.
> If it is fibre, a media convertor might suffice instead of
> a WAN port.
It is usually nice to have some router between the LAN and WAN.
It might also be desired that each building should be a separate
(sub)net.
> On the other hand, if security or QoS or shaping turns out to
> be needed then it might turn out that the easiest approach is
> to use something like a layer 3 switch, and depending on the
> feature set and model, an appropriate GBIC or SFP slot might
> already be there.
The OP wanted to keep costs down, which tends toward cheaper
routers such as the home/SOHO routers that are popular now.
The Linksys WRT54G at least has a 100baseTX port for the WAN,
and I believe can transfer reasonably fast through that port.
One for each building and another, or something faster, between
them and the WAN link should be about right.
-- glen
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Wanting to share internet between two networks | February 24, 2005, 5:19 am |
| Samba share safe within LAN? | December 19, 2007, 7:29 pm |
| ADC FL1000 Wall-Mount Boxes,ADC Wall-Mounted Fiber Distribution Boxes,Wall-Mounted Fiber Distribution Panels,ADC Wall Mounted Fiber Termination Panels | March 7, 2006, 9:06 pm |
| Internet Slowness | December 19, 2005, 12:50 am |
| internet jobs | July 3, 2006, 2:46 am |
| Slow down of internet service | November 27, 2005, 10:08 pm |
| internet switch recommendation | May 17, 2006, 10:51 am |
| Sharing Hotel Room Internet | October 10, 2005, 10:52 am |
| Internet not working with gigabit switch | December 1, 2005, 9:52 am |
| Multiple LANs - One Internet Connection | January 23, 2006, 8:59 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map