On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:39:48PM +0100, Mark Rogers wrote:
On 29 April 2015 at 15:09, Chris Green cl@isbd.net wrote:
So what good would this do you? All the routers can talk to each other, the rest of the network can communicate with itself but you have no way to communicate between them.
Why?
Let's say I have three ADSL routers on (respectively) 192.168.1.1, 192.168.2.1, 192.168.3.1, all with 255.255.255.0 subnets and all with DHCP turned off. The LAN ports of all of these could be connected to the same switch and they'd not be able to talk to each other as they're on different subnets. (I've tweaked IP addresses from my last post.)
Ah, not quite the arrangement you seemed to be suggesting before, maybe I misunderstood.
I then add a new box with one network card (connected to the same switch) but a number of IP addresses on it (eth0=192.168.100.1, eth0:1=192.168.1.2, eth0:2=192.168.2.2, eth0:3=192.168.3.2), so it can talk to everything. Enable DHCP on the 192.168.100.x range.
Can you do this? I.e. have a single network card with multiple subnets? .... yes, you can, IP aliasing.
I then add other PCs and laptops (etc) to the same switch (or via WiFi to the same network) and they all get 192.168.100.x addresses, gateway 192.168.100.1. They can only see the gateway, it can then forward traffic as required to each of the three ADSL routers.
(Aside: My routing knowledge isn't strong enough to answer this, but I can't actually see why this couldn't also work if all the routers and the rest of the network were on the same subnet.)
Not the same subnet, the same physical network, they're on different subnets.
However, at this point I fail to see what difference it makes compared with simply having all the devices on the same subnet. You just have the added complication of having to setup the IP aliases on the single network card.
What advantages would using the same physical network confer?
Reason why this might be useful (and why I was thinking about it): Simpler hardware for the "box" (just one physical interface required so something like a Pi could handle it). Simpler cabling (the ADSL routers don't all need to be in one location and "behind" the "box"). It means that the number of WAN's a router can support is not limited by having to have a separate physical port for each one.
Yes, but, as I say above, what have you gained?
Downside is throughput, although with a gigabit card and several 4Mbps ADSL connections I don't think it's going to be struggling. Other downside might be "but it won't work", which is why I was asking!
I don't really see what is different between having eth0/eth0:1/eth0:2/eth0:3 (on a single cable) vs eth0/eth1/eth2/eth3 (on separate cards but all connected to the same switch) vs eth0-eth3 on separate networks.
... and what/who decides which router to use?
There's only one DHCP server and that would "decide". Of-course any
That's deciding what IP addresses are given to systems whenm they start up, it's not deciding where to send packets.
device on the network could be configured to use one of the gateways directly but that's a "feature" rather than a problem in a small network (I accept that there are plenty of environments where you'd want to lock that down though). Even so, managed switches could control that rather than needing separate physical interfaces in the router.
So there still needs to be some sort of load balancing/decision making in the router which is specified as the gateway for all the connected systems.
I can see no advantage over:-
192.168.1.1 - 'master' router, is the gateway and does DHCP 192.168.1.2 - router A, fixed IP, no DHCP 192.168.1.3 - router B, fixed IP, no DHCP 192.168.1.3 - router C, fixed IP, no DHCP ... ... 192.168.1.x - system(s) assigned IP by master router ...
The routing/load balancing algorithm in the master router sends packets out via its own external interface or off to one of the other
So there still needs to be some sort of load balancing/decision making in the router which is specified as the gateway for all the connected systems.
I can see no advantage over:-
192.168.1.1 - 'master' router, is the gateway and does DHCP 192.168.1.2 - router A, fixed IP, no DHCP 192.168.1.3 - router B, fixed IP, no DHCP 192.168.1.3 - router C, fixed IP, no DHCP ... ... 192.168.1.x - system(s) assigned IP by master router ...
The routing/load balancing algorithm in the master router sends packets out via its own external interface or off to one of the other routers.