Network layout showoff

[White_Helix]

Thats the logical side of it, physically we have Cat.6 sockets in every room, Cat.7 cable and everything nice and tidy in a little rack. I have to use my ISPs ONT, not pictured in there (imagine as the cloud). For the AP-AC-LR we have another Cat.7 running in the floor below, as well as a LWL for future use. Also another LWL in the basement, where my future office/studio will be located. The IP camera is just the first one, recording to the QNAP Surveillance Station running on the NAS with more to follow.

[Scatfanfn]

Here is mine.

[Montgomery C Burns]

-

[kevdagoat]

Pretty small in comparison:

[PC Pig]

[Sir Asvald]

On 8/17/2014 at 12:24 PM, Ssoele said:

 

Nice  

[DanielNS84]

PNG, JPG, and PDF Versions Attached...

Network Layout_Direct.pdf

 

 

 

 

Edit: Wanted to put a gap in between the PNG and JPG versions! The one above is the PNG with transparency...the JPG below is the smaller one...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2018 by DanielNS84

[Ja Krispie]

On 12/16/2018 at 8:54 AM, DanielNS84 said:

PNG, JPG, and PDF Versions Attached...

Network Layout_Direct.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Wanted to put a gap in between the PNG and JPG versions! The one above is the PNG with transparency...the JPG below is the smaller one...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've been thinking of adding a second connection for redundancy. Do you use your ATT DSL as a backup?

[ololax]

A simple drawing of my network, only fancy bit is probably the vpn tunnel to my offsite server

[Jorgenv]

Well, Here is my home setup. Didn't bother with drawing the wireless devices. But i use a surface pro 4 mostly in the outdoor area close to the AC AP Lite, 2 iPhones (me and my wife), 2 iPads (Kids), Galaxy Tab (work), Galaxy phone (work) and two Chromecast audios. When we moved in i also put an ethernet connection in the bedroom for a smart tv, but we never used it, so i put that tv in the outdoor area. I also put in an extra ethernet cable to the living room for the tv settop box, because it needed a straight connection to the modem, but we got rid of the cable tv because we never watched it.

 

[david.lesicnik]

Rather boring so far, standard consumer-grade gear, I will be turning an old computer into an ESXi host and offload the VMs off my desktop onto that.

As you can tell from the little IP range list, I'm leaving myself lots of headroom with my IP designations, I'd rather not change that in the future once this expands.

 

The reason I have the second router running as a full router and not running them in bridged is because the first one is a router/modem combo and it doesn't have good configuration options, which the second one allows. I'm still trying to figure out how to properly forward ports through two NATs, but, eh, I'll figure it out.

[GazCBG]

Why do some of you run your own DNS Servers and not use 3rd party DNS like Google or ISP?

Am I missing out on something.

[Cree340]

13 hours ago, GazCBG said:

Why do some of you run your own DNS Servers and not use 3rd party DNS like Google or ISP?

Am I missing out on something.

They still probably rely on 3rd party recursive DNS servers such as Google, OpenDNS/Cisco Umbrella, Cloudflare/1.1.1.1, Quad9, or their ISP's resolver. It's that they also have a local resolver that will cache frequently used DNS queries, allow them to create DNS records for internal uses (like assigning servers with FQDNs or assigning PTR records to RFC1918 IP addresses), and blackhole certain DNS queries for security or ad-blocking purposes (like in the case of Pi-Hole). Other reasons why you won't directly point to external recursive DNS servers might be due to requirements from other network services/applications like Active Directory. 

 

Just so you know, even 3rd party DNS resolvers need to query other DNS servers on the internet when it receives a query that doesn't exist in its cache, having a local DNS server just adds another layer.

[cmdrhomer]

Just an ordinary Homelab Network Topology, definitely not overkill.

Now just awaiting to change ISP to one where I can get 10Gbit symmetrical connection.

[Mikensan]

23 minutes ago, cmdrhomer said:

Just an ordinary Homelab Network Topology, definitely not overkill.

Now just awaiting to change ISP to one where I can get 10Gbit symmetrical connection.

 

How much did the C5010P set you back, if you don't mind me asking?

[cmdrhomer]

1 minute ago, Mikensan said:

How much did the C5010P set you back, if you don't mind me asking?

I found it on Ebay for 250 euros but that thing is loud and power hungry.

[Mikensan]

5 minutes ago, cmdrhomer said:

I found it on Ebay for 250 euros but that thing is loud and power hungry.

Ah ok, still a pretty solid deal. Currently running a Nexus 3048, also loud and power hungry lol. Wish I knew I couldn't set the MTU per port before buying it however.

[Lurick]

26 minutes ago, Mikensan said:

Ah ok, still a pretty solid deal. Currently running a Nexus 3048, also loud and power hungry lol. Wish I knew I couldn't set the MTU per port before buying it however.

Just curious, why not just set it globally to allow jumbo frames for all L2 ports?

I assume you need to have it at a specific MTU for compatibility reasons with something else but figured I'd ask

[Mikensan]

11 minutes ago, Lurick said:

Just curious, why not just set it globally to allow jumbo frames for all L2 ports?

I assume you need to have it at a specific MTU for compatibility reasons with something else but figured I'd ask

I'm using 1GB ports on it still, figured it would cause a lot of fragmentation at the devices who are all 1500? Is that right or am I crazy (novice networking guy)?

[Lurick]

1 minute ago, Mikensan said:

I'm using 1GB ports on it still, figured it would cause a lot of fragmentation at the devices who are all 1500? Is that right or am I crazy (novice networking guy)?

Yah, unless you're IPv6 only which does path MTU discovery and adjusts automatically, I have to double check but I believe for IPv4 it will send jumbo frames first and if they are too big then the client should respond with a packet saying "too big" and the sender should drop the frame size down and not cause any more fragmentation. Been a while since I've dealt with that though so I could be wrong.

[Mikensan]

4 minutes ago, Lurick said:

Yah, unless you're IPv6 only which does path MTU discovery and adjusts automatically, I have to double check but I believe for IPv4 it will send jumbo frames first and if they are too big then the client should respond with a packet saying "too big" and the sender should drop the frame size down and not cause any more fragmentation. Been a while since I've dealt with that though so I could be wrong.

Given the nature of the nexus I don't think it would drop the MTU size whereas a normal switch might should that be the case. It's ok for now, I'm getting close enough 10GB speeds in the end to not worry. Think I got around 800-900mbyte/s and I'm content lol. I've never tried going ipv6 internally (or at all for that matter), may be a fun project.

[brwainer]

49 minutes ago, Mikensan said:

Given the nature of the nexus I don't think it would drop the MTU size whereas a normal switch might should that be the case. It's ok for now, I'm getting close enough 10GB speeds in the end to not worry. Think I got around 800-900mbyte/s and I'm content lol. I've never tried going ipv6 internally (or at all for that matter), may be a fun project.

Having jumbo frames enabled on the switch doesn’t cause it to magically do anything to traffic going through it - the client and server devices also have to have the MTU set higher so that they know to try jumbo frames

[Mikensan]

1 hour ago, brwainer said:

Having jumbo frames enabled on the switch doesn’t cause it to magically do anything to traffic going through it - the client and server devices also have to have the MTU set higher so that they know to try jumbo frames

Isn't the opposite true - if a client sends a jumbo frame to the switch set to 1500, the switch will cut it up into 6 pieces (9000/1500) and send them on their way? I thought it would also gather up frames of 1500 until it has a frame of 9000 and send that down the pipe, where a client set to 1500 would have to deconstruct it?

[brwainer]

1 hour ago, Mikensan said:

Isn't the opposite true - if a client sends a jumbo frame to the switch set to 1500, the switch will cut it up into 6 pieces (9000/1500) and send them on their way? I thought it would also gather up frames of 1500 until it has a frame of 9000 and send that down the pipe, where a client set to 1500 would have to deconstruct it?

The switch will not recombine frames, because layer 2 has no function for that. Splitting and recombining packets is done by IP (layer 3). The only place you might see a switch change MTUs of packets is if you are actually using it for routing.

[dmaes]

Not my home network, but at my dorm-room (student Applied Informatics).

Want to replace the cheap TP-Link and dumb swich with a PfSense-box, managed switch and a decent AP (cheap TP-Link only has 2.4GHz).

Laptop and phone not included.