Re: [Sheflug] Network design problem

[Alex Hudson <home@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Peter Humphrey wrote:
> I looks as though I've made a mistake in the topology, but where?
>   

Many of your networks overlap in IP ranges: effectively, members of 
different networks are going to be thinking they're on the same network, 
but the netmasks / broadcast addresses / etc. are all going to be 
different. The physical layout of your network is probably going to be 
the reason why it doesn't work, but I really wouldn't suggest you try to 
continue with that IP design.

If you want to subdivide the local network so strongly, make all of the 
networks distinct, e.g.:

	vrtnet		192.168.10.0/24
	wapnet		192.168.11.0/24
	ethnet		192.168.12.0/24

I don't see any point having a 'dmznet' - there are no public IP ranges 
- or the 'outnet', since each network is going to need a gateway anyway.

It does feel like you're trying to make this too complicated. There is 
sense in having separate IP networks for each physical media - e.g., 
ethernet versus wireless - but beyond that, I would try to keep it as 
simple as possible. There is very benefit to be gained by subdividing 
physical networks, and if you did want to go that route I would advise 
you to look into 802.11q VLAN tagging.

Cheers,

Alex.



_______________________________________________
        Sheffield Linux User's Group
  http://www.sheflug.org.uk/mailfaq.html
 GNU - The choice of a complete generation