EggXpert

So, I'm working towards hosting my first LAN party that exceeds (I believe) the abilities of one or two everyday routers. At me and my friends past LAN parties we've always used an average router or two, which seemed to fit our (usually a group of four) needs. However, this LAN party is looking to have closer to twelve poeple showing up, so I'm looking into getting a 16-port switch. As much as (I'd like to think) I know about computers and hardware, I don't know much about networking, and a bit unclear as to the role of switches. Here's my idea of how I can easily put one to use now: connect it with my modem, connect a handful or two of computers, create a network using the wizard in Windows, enjoy. I have a strong feeling that my internet connection won't support much more than browsing and maybe downloading a patch when spread out among a dozen or so computers, but I'm hoping it can at least do that. Is my idea about right? What else should I know so that the party isn't a collosal failure network-wise? Also, what would you recommend as a cheap and durable 16-(or so)-port switch? And one last question: if I plan on using the wizard on Windows XP, should I expect difficulty dealing with those who are running Vista? Thanks in advance!

Are you running off of your own game server? If so your internet connection matters little.

My kids are splitting a 1.5Mbs DSL signal playing WOW or Guild Wars and it doesn't seem to lag that much. Vista networks in just fine.

If you are putting together an internet sharing network as long as they are running any background software updating utilities Its very hard for even 10 user to demand the full bandwidth at the exact same time

RangerMoose:

So, I'm working towards hosting my first LAN party that exceeds (I believe) the abilities of one or two everyday routers. At me and my friends past LAN parties we've always used an average router or two, which seemed to fit our (usually a group of four) needs. However, this LAN party is looking to have closer to twelve poeple showing up, so I'm looking into getting a 16-port switch. As much as (I'd like to think) I know about computers and hardware, I don't know much about networking, and a bit unclear as to the role of switches. Here's my idea of how I can easily put one to use now: connect it with my modem, connect a handful or two of computers, create a network using the wizard in Windows, enjoy. I have a strong feeling that my internet connection won't support much more than browsing and maybe downloading a patch when spread out among a dozen or so computers, but I'm hoping it can at least do that. Is my idea about right? What else should I know so that the party isn't a collosal failure network-wise? Also, what would you recommend as a cheap and durable 16-(or so)-port switch? And one last question: if I plan on using the wizard on Windows XP, should I expect difficulty dealing with those who are running Vista? Thanks in advance!

I dunno what the guy above me is talking about, @ a LAN you hardly will need internet at all unless someone is not patched up to the latest version of say Counter-Strike. Other than that a 16 port will do you fine. Most of the time everything will auto configure, wired networks are much much less of a hassle to work with than wireless. You shouldn't have to make that network setup and then pop in a floppy into every PC on the network for it to work-out. In-game everyone will see the LAN servers and internet should work flawlessly (except where bandwidth is concerned)  if you connect the modem directly to the switch.

My 5 port Belkin switch has served me for many years and I have never had to configure it, everything just works. The wireless router on the other hand took a day or two before being stable.

 

BTW: Where's this LAN at, state and possibly major city would help, I want to come. :D
 

This is what i usually do to keep up a network while gaming.

I use a router for use as a DHCP server, it cuts down on work alot.  You can use your internet box for the DHCP stuff.

Then i connect all the computers i can to the router and then run a wire from the router to another switch.  I tend to use many switches and hubs to keep the traffic down.  You want to keep the majority of the load off of one wire.  So i would connect as few computers to a hub as possible and dont daisy chain them, maybe give each hub its own wire to the router, or the first hub after the router.

Next, make sure you are all on the same workgroup.  You can do this in XP by righ clicking my computer and choosing computer name. 

After that, about all you need to worry about is that the firewalls are all off except the one in your internet box.  It may sound risky but it makes things tons easier.

If it gives you grief, make a post and im sure someone will be online to help you. 

I know the definition of a LAN party means "LOCAL" but it has been misused to the point where any group of rigs playing the same game is concidered a LAN party even though they really are playing on a public server. Like the South Park WOW episode. WAN Clan party would be more accurate.

 

"Here's my idea of how I can easily put one to use now: connect it with my modem, connect a handful or two of computers, create a network using the wizard in Windows, enjoy."

That is not going to work.  You cannot just plug your ISP modem into a switch and share out the connection that way.  You have to involve a router of some sort unless you've bought a block of IPs from your ISP to allow multiple publics which I doubt.

Also, to clear up some confusion I'm seeing on here, a hub is not a switch and vice versa.  A hub is a shared bandwidth device where traffic is seen across all ports even though it's not specifically designated for a particular device plugged in to it.  A switch goes about trying to make network traffic more efficient.  A switch learns what MAC addresses are present on which port.  When a packet is sent directed to a specific MAC address, the switch will send the packet only to the port where that device is attached.  No other port on the switch will see this traffic.  The switch accomplishes this by storing MAC addresses in memory.  The size of this memory depends on the type of switch and manufacturer.  Switches also allow full duplex operation which is not possible with hubs.  Even though switches are predominant and have pretty much negated the use of hubs, hubs still have their applications.  We use hubs when we are trying to sniff traffic at a specific network point.  Not all switches allow port mirroring and sometimes it's just easier to throw a hub in as opposed to reconfiguring the switch.

Personally, I think you'll be fine just cascading 100Mbit switches off of your router to gain the port density.  If you need 16 ports, you can just buy a 16 or 24 port switch.  Have all your PCs connected to this switch and plug in one of the free ports on the switch into one of the switch ports of your internet router.  The bandwidth consideration won't be an issue locally between gaming boxes because all the traffic will stay on the switch and I highly doubt just gaming would saturate the available bandwidth of the switch's backplane.  If you need the PCs to go out to the internet, you would saturate your ISP's pipe sooner than reaching the maximum throughput of your router.

It depends on whether he has Cable or DSL. I have DSL and the "router" is somewhat intergrated into the modem itself. I have to set services in the modem to host things, otherwise plugging any PC into the switch gives local and internet straight away without issue while the modem is directly connected to the switch too.

You're talking about a modem/router combo.  There's a difference.  It's only over the past few years that DSL companies were sending modem/router combos.  But strictly speaking a modem is a modem unless otherwise specified.  A modem/router is sometimes referred to as a gateway router.

Agreed....hubs should NOT be used.

a couple of 8-port switches in the (gateway,) router, and everyone into them is my recommendation as well. or a single 16-port if you preferr....but I believe that 2 8's will be cheaper....

hope this helps! 

Tallon41

 

i would get 2 gigabit 8 port switches, i prefer the netgear gs608 and connect both together and have 1 of them connect to the router.  that way everyone is connected together at gig speeds and you have your normal 100mbps connection back to the router.

zx10guy:

"Here's my idea of how I can easily put one to use now: connect it with my modem, connect a handful or two of computers, create a network using the wizard in Windows, enjoy."

That is not going to work.  You cannot just plug your ISP modem into a switch and share out the connection that way.  You have to involve a router of some sort unless you've bought a block of IPs from your ISP to allow multiple publics which I doubt.

Also, to clear up some confusion I'm seeing on here, a hub is not a switch and vice versa.  A hub is a shared bandwidth device where traffic is seen across all ports even though it's not specifically designated for a particular device plugged in to it.  A switch goes about trying to make network traffic more efficient.  A switch learns what MAC addresses are present on which port.  When a packet is sent directed to a specific MAC address, the switch will send the packet only to the port where that device is attached.  No other port on the switch will see this traffic.  The switch accomplishes this by storing MAC addresses in memory.  The size of this memory depends on the type of switch and manufacturer.  Switches also allow full duplex operation which is not possible with hubs.  Even though switches are predominant and have pretty much negated the use of hubs, hubs still have their applications.  We use hubs when we are trying to sniff traffic at a specific network point.  Not all switches allow port mirroring and sometimes it's just easier to throw a hub in as opposed to reconfiguring the switch.

Personally, I think you'll be fine just cascading 100Mbit switches off of your router to gain the port density.  If you need 16 ports, you can just buy a 16 or 24 port switch.  Have all your PCs connected to this switch and plug in one of the free ports on the switch into one of the switch ports of your internet router.  The bandwidth consideration won't be an issue locally between gaming boxes because all the traffic will stay on the switch and I highly doubt just gaming would saturate the available bandwidth of the switch's backplane.  If you need the PCs to go out to the internet, you would saturate your ISP's pipe sooner than reaching the maximum throughput of your router.

 

zx10guy, you absolutely read my mind, are you CCNA as well? ( a little off topic I know sorry )

Although, switches like that can get pricy, but of course that depends on your requirements, if you can afford it get a Cisco 2900 Catalyst Switch, your router will manage the IP addressing for you. The Catalysts are good and the 2900 series are a bit dated but your not running a corporate network at home (I would assume, no offense) so it should be fine, you might need to console in to go through initial configuration, but I'm not totally sure thats nessacery on the Cisco Switches, the cisco routers its mandatory however. 

You will not need gigabit, also you can not just connect two switched together, you must use a crossover cable to connect them together.Also you dont need to use the networking wizard. Just set them to the same workgroup and wham bam thank you ma'am your golden brown. 

J172:

zx10guy, you absolutely read my mind, are you CCNA as well? ( a little off topic I know sorry )

Although, switches like that can get pricy, but of course that depends on your requirements, if you can afford it get a Cisco 2900 Catalyst Switch, your router will manage the IP addressing for you. The Catalysts are good and the 2900 series are a bit dated but your not running a corporate network at home (I would assume, no offense) so it should be fine, you might need to console in to go through initial configuration, but I'm not totally sure thats nessacery on the Cisco Switches, the cisco routers its mandatory however. 

You will not need gigabit, also you can not just connect two switched together, you must use a crossover cable to connect them together.Also you dont need to use the networking wizard. Just set them to the same workgroup and wham bam thank you ma'am your golden brown. 

No.  I'm not a CCNA.  I've been too lazy and too busy to sit down and do the test.  I'm actually shooting more for a CCIE.

While I would love to say Cisco type gear is what everyone should have, I don't think it's appropriate in a large number of cases.  The complexity to configure a Catalyst switch with a command line interface is more than many home users are capable of.  Cisco has released a GUI interface called Network Assistant which does make configuring switches simpler.  But you do have to know how to get into the switch via command line and set up the switch to be able to be managed by Network Assistant.  By default, a non-configured Cisco switch will just be a "regular" dumb switch.  But to have a switch of this caliber in a home environment is wasting the additional features these switches are capable of.  An alternative to the regular Catalyst switches are the new line of Catalyst Express switches.  All web GUI management but no command line capability.  They are cheaper than their regular Catalyst counterparts.  I personally feel the appropriate switch for the issue at hand here is just a regular unmanaged switch....even though I have nothing but managed switches on my home network which includes a Catalyst 2960G and a Catalyst 3560.

As far as not being able to cascade switches without a crossover cable, this isn't entirely true.  In the Cisco world, this is true for the most part.  But in the outside of Cisco world, most if not all manufacturers have gone to network devices which support MDI/MDI-X.  MDI/MDI-X eliminated the need to worry about crossover cables where the network devices auto negotiate among themselves on who is going to flip the send/receive pairs.  Cisco is slowly making their newer products auto sensing in this regard.  Much to my chagrin as I've been dinging them in their customer surveys I've filled out for them mentioning the lack of this capability.

Wow. I'm a fourth way through my Cisco CCNA Classes. We've covered SoHo completely but the curiculum (which was just released after being recreated this May) never mentioned that, thanks for the info, that will save me some money in the future. I'm also happy to see Cisco adding an entry level line of switches, they had a entry line router series (which, to the kindness of the Ohio Public Library Information Network and the DoD, I have two of) but the switches had'nt gotten such attention as far as I know. I'd also never heard of Network Assistant, only Cisco ConfigMaker, which is a bit dated to say the absolute least.

I still think Cisco needs to release a line of more "entry" level routers.  The GUI for the Catalyst Express switches are pretty much the same as the Network Assistant interface.  I've also played with the GUI on some recent IOS releases.  To me it's not entirely simplified where I would defer to using the GUI for router configuration.  I still do all my router configuration via command line.  On the other hand, the ASA/PIX OS releases from 7.x on up has a really good GUI called the ASDM (Adaptive Security Device Manager.)  I do most of my configuration with the ASDM.  I only occassionally touch the command line with the firewalls now.

The issue I think Cisco needs to figure out is how Linksys is going to tie in with their SMB line and Cisco's lower end entries.  I've talked to my Cisco reps about this and the consensus for now is that if you need better customer support and problem resolution, you go with Cisco.

It's good you were able to get your hands on some routers for your studies.  I would also recommend looking into purchasing used gear to augment your home lab.  I've had good experiences with networkhardware.com .  A former coworker has had good experiences with teksavers.com .  Both sell used Cisco gear and provide a one year warranty on them.  I bought a 2611XM router used from networkhardware.com and it arrived in pristine condition with the ancillary cables and rack mount ears.  I also bought 2 1841 routers from networkhardware.com but those purchases were as a new purchase.

Sweet! Thanks for the tips, and yeah every site I've been to says GET A HOME LAB!! lol so yeah, thanks so much, I was just gonna go ebay. I read that as buying 21,841 routers. I was kinda like O.O wtf lol. I'm definitely going to go with Cisco once I can fully use them and config them. I'll just turn my home lab into production :D

I used to run a lan party with a few friends. 2x 24port switches with gigabit uplinks, and a router for the dhcp server. If we had internet, it was plugged into the router, then everyone had internet. was incredibly easy to be honest.

No problem.  Glad to help.  I've corresponded with another forum member here about getting his own Cisco lab going.  I stay away from Fleabay like the plague as you really don't know what you're going to get.  The pricing I was able to get from the two sites I've mentioned often times were way better than what I was seeing on Fleabay.  You can also get the two companies to price bid against each other.

As far as turning the Cisco stuff into production, I've done it on my home network.  The 3560 and 2960 switches are my primary backbone switches.  I haven't done anything with layer 3 routing on the 3560 but use it currently for VLAN segregation and PoE.  The 2960 is my main backbone switch as it is a GigE switch.  I have 2 Netgear FS526T managed switches cascaded off of the 2960 for port density.  The routers I have are currently only being used as a lab where I have T1 cards installed in the 1841 routers with the 2611XM having 2 T1 cards to simulate the internet/WAN.  Finally, I have 2 ASA5505 firewalls.  One of the 5505s I am using exclusively as a WebVPN concentrator and the other is my main firewall/router that links the three different subnets I am running in my home network together.  The WebVPN ASA has the regular K9 license while the main ASA firewall has the security plus license.

With all this firepower I have, my edge router which connects to my DSL provider is....drum roll.......a Netgear FVS338.  LOL.  The reason the Netgear is still there is because it has native dynamic DNS support.  None of the ASA firewalls support this.  I think the Cisco routers might support it natively but I'll have to look into it.  Sometime next year which is one day away, I might purchase a 1861 router.  I've been looking over the features of this router and it's a neat little box.

LMAO. The dyn dns is what my worry is too. I love my home FTP server, with 100MB+ of CCNA school work per 2 weeks I need more backups but I got a 4gig flash drive for christmas, so now my teacher uses it to get my assignments from me lol.

zx10guy:

With all this firepower I have, my edge router which connects to my DSL provider is....drum roll.......a Netgear FVS338.  LOL. 

at least it has a decent WAN--LAN and WAN to LAN speed rating.  I have an FVS318 at one of our offices we upgraded to FIOS....15D 2U. Low and behold, I can only get 7mps through it.  I checked and the MFR claims 12.5mbs......which should be a crime IMO.....c**p, and double-c**p.  oh well !

time to buy a new vpn router !  lol

checkout the below link for some speed tests on a wide variety of routers.....some surprises.

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_chart/Itemid,189/chart,119/

Tallon41:

zx10guy:

With all this firepower I have, my edge router which connects to my DSL provider is....drum roll.......a Netgear FVS338.  LOL. 

at least it has a decent WAN--LAN and WAN to LAN speed rating.  I have an FVS318 at one of our offices we upgraded to FIOS....15D 2U. Low and behold, I can only get 7mps through it.  I checked and the MFR claims 12.5mbs......which should be a crime IMO.....c**p, and double-c**p.  oh well !

time to buy a new vpn router !  lol

checkout the below link for some speed tests on a wide variety of routers.....some surprises.

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_chart/Itemid,189/chart,119/

I experienced the throughput issues first hand when I had the FVS318v1 in my network.  When I added the FVS338, the differences were night and day.  Overall the FVS338 is a solid VPN end point router.  But things like the stupid broadcast flood it does every 5 minutes to find DHCP clients is extremely stupid.  There are other things I've grown acustom to because of my continual work with Cisco gear which are lacking in the Netgear products.