|
Tom's Hardware put out a pretty decent article about networking that's a pretty good read for new and intermediate people: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/local-area-network-gigabit-ethernet,3035.html
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2011 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
lonters run around posted:What's a nice non-wireless router capable of running DD-WRT that would work for a small company, with like under 10 people using it simultanously? All the ones listed in the OP are wireless. I'm asking because I suppose with a non-wireless one we would get a better router for a lower price. Run m0n0wall or pfSense on an old PC (or buy a new, Atom-based mini PC for $200 if you want something new and low-power). They are both free. We use m0n0wall to handle 40 people and 5 VPN users on a 50mb connection without breaking a sweat, < 600MHz and 64MB RAM They were using one of these (Linksys RV82) when I first go here but it sucked a bag of balls: 
Bob Morales fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Nov 9, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2011 20:00
|
|
|
I'm running a m0n0wall VM on ESX 4, and it keeps rebooting every ten minutes or so. I think it's a kernel error but it automatically reboots so I don't have time to get a screenshot (still trying). Nothing's changed with the config and the rest of the VM's seem fine. Any ideas? edit: The error is as follows - Mar 7 19:22:49 kernel: Rebooting... Mar 7 19:22:49 kernel: Automatic reboot in 15 seconds - press a key on the console to abort Mar 7 19:22:49 kernel: Cannot dump. No dump device defined. Mar 7 19:22:49 kernel: Uptime: 9m53s Mar 7 19:22:49 kernel: panic: kmem_malloc(4096): kmem_map too small: 25952256 total allocated The VM has 96MB memory - this has been working fine for almost a year. It shows about 33 megs being used. Also, m0n0wall docs say: 2.5.4. RAM The stock m0n0wall images will not use more than 64 MB RAM under any circumstance. You can install as much memory as you like, but even with all features enabled and heavy loads, you will not exhaust 64 MB. Bob Morales fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Mar 7, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2012 15:25
|
|
|
Imagine a network setup like so:code:Most are just browsing the web or working with documents from a server. No real heavy lifting or huge bandwidth users. Is there any point is putting all the wireless traffic on 192.168.101.x by changing the settings on the AP (making it handle DHCP) and adding a route to the router to make it work? I'm only going to reduce broadcast traffic since the network is switched, right? And will that stop things like Bonjour or Windows network neighborhood discovery from working? Everyone will still be able to connect to 'fileserver', they just won't be able to browse to it if they're on wireless, right?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
Is there anything in the $500-range that can do failover between two links? We don't need load balancing, I just want to be able to switch from our cable modem to our DSL line without having to manually do anything. Right now we have a m0n0wall instance running on our ESX box. I thought about throwing another NIC in that server and plugging the DSL line into that, and then when there's an outage, shut the 'Cable Modem' m0n0wall box down and then start up another one configured to use the DSL line. Same IP etc. This would basically be for the hour or two when the cable goes out every 2 months. The other two requirements are that the router has an easy to use DNS forwarding setup - we have like 50 hostnames that we point to a local server for development so we need it to be simple enough for a web programmer to use, when they need to add a new hostname to test a local copy of a site. Also, we need some sort of a VPN capability - we're okay with VPN not working when the cable line is down (then again we can just make vpn2.foobar.com and point that to the DSL IP address) We have a Linksys RV082 or something, we used to use it but m0n0wall's traffic shaping made the 5mb DSL line actually usable. We have a 50mb cable line now so maybe it wouldn't matter.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2012 14:31
|
|
|
Anyone good with pfSense? Here's the deal: We have a fast (50mb) cable connection but it goes down every now and then. A week or two ago we had a slow (768k lol) DSL modem installed (we also brought in actual phone lines because our phone service was from the cable company and that going down all the time was the reason for the switch). Anyway, the idea was we would have a DSL line for backup since slow internet is better than no internet, which we send everyone home because we are an INTARNET COMPANY. I use using m0n0wall with the cable modem before and the DSL connection we had at our old building, mainly for the DNS features and traffic shaping. I setup a server with pfSense on it, gave it an IP from the cable modem and the DSL modem, and tested the failover out. It worked as expected, taking like 5 seconds or so to switch over. On Monday or Tuesday, I called the DSL provider and got the information for the static IP block we were supposed to get, and had the speed turned up to 3.0mb. Not great but better than 768k. Now, instead of getting a private IP from the DSL modem's DHCP server (129.168.1.whatever), the pfSense interface gets a public IP (I statically set this. I had it going via DHCP (still a public IP) and it does the same thing). I can set up a laptop with another IP address from our block and it gets online fine and if I got to a site that shows your IP address, it's the correct public address. The point is, now the failover doesn't work right. Any ideas why? The screenshot shows traffic on the primary (the top graph) then you can see where I pulled the plug on the cable modem, and the traffic automatically shifts to the DSL modem (bottom graph). But there's no incoming traffic, only outgoing. I was going to test putting the DSL modem back to the factory settings so it (the modem) uses the single public DHCP address and see if the failover still works. I would be doing double-NAT to the network clients but if it works who gives a poo poo.  edit: derp, fixed it, dns issue - http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,22473.0.html Bob Morales fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Nov 30, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
Are Medialink routers from Amazon any good? I haven't heard of them and they weren't mentioned in the OP but they have like 4,500 reviews on Amazon
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
Gothmog1065 posted:How hard is it to pull a MAC address of a router from Wifi without having any access to said WiFi? In other words, do some packet sniffing or whatever, pull SSID, then pull the mac information on the router. How hard is it to do that? Not very hard since it's on every packet your router sends out. http://www.maxi-pedia.com/how+to+break+MAC+filtering
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2012 16:23
|
|
|
What's the best way to figure out what's going on with my connection? Very sporadically I will have the following happen: I can't get on SOME websites. Something Awful works fine, CNN.com works, but Facebook or LinkedIn won't work. Strangely enough, m.facebook.com (the mobile site) works. My pings look like poo poo but like I said, I can surf most sites.  nslookup for the sites I can't visit in a browser works just fine. Firefor and Chrome both have the same problem. I can run ping tests from my Ubuntu machine and it looks exactly the same, but for whatever reason I can get on LinkedIn from that machine. They're both wireless. I have a Belkin N150 that's about 20 feet away and whatever Motorola modem my cable company gave me 2 months ago. To make it even weirder, my Speedtest results are fine:  And pinging another site works fine: code:I've noticed weirdness pinging Yahoo.com from places other than my house, but that are using the same cable internet provider (Charter) if that helps.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
Ninja Rope posted:Does your ping to your router ever suck? No, they're fine. code:
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
Ninja Rope posted:The word "vip" in the hostname likely indicates that the device answering to that IP address is a load balancer. That load balancer is probably pretty busy and dedicated network devices often de-prioritize and rate limit pings sent directly to them (but not to devices "behind" them). I also get a lovely ping time to that device, and I'm guessing that's the reason. quote:$ ping 98.139.183.24 Nice catch. I guess I'm just used to typing 'ping https://www.yahoo.com' to check internet connectivity since like...1998. I did switch from OpenDNS back to Google DNS so we'll see if that helps at all. That's what my phone was using (my router was set to OpenDNS) and I could get on any sites when my laptop couldn't. I don't use my ISP's DNS because it's a piece of poo poo. What exactly is the correlation between 'vip' and load balancer? brand name? acronym? v for virtual or something? Bob Morales fucked around with this message at 14:10 on May 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2013 14:04
|
|
|
Ninja Rope posted:4.2.2.2 is another good set of DNS servers to use, and I get a better ping to them than to anyone else, though they don't give quite as good Google GSLB magic as 8.8.8.8 supposedly does. I used to use the Level 3 servers until they would randomly drop on me. I switched to Google but I get really slow downloads sometimes from Apple (Xcode and OS X updates) so I started using OpenDNS...back to Google I guess.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Are people still using HOSTS files to block ads? I remember there used to be one I used with a ton of entries for all the different ad networks and stuff, but I wasn't sure if people still used them, and if so, what site are you getting updated lists from? Sick of getting popups or poo poo ads.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
Dogen posted:Not since there's about a million better ways to do it now. What browser are you using that doesn't have an adblock extension or the like? Normally Safari or Chrome - but browser add-ons and extensions always seem to act up at the dumbest times.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Dogen posted:Have you tried adblock (not adblock plus)? That's pretty much the recommended one for chrome around here, and I've used it on safari as well. No, I will give it a whirl.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
I'm finally getting internet that doesn't suck poo poo, so I need to pick out a firewall of some sort. What I'd really like is a tiny PC that will run some sort of Linux firewall so that I can log as much traffic as possible and make lots of graphs. I'd like to know how many requests I'm sending to ad networks, for instance, or how many times some random iPhone app phones home. How much traffic my MacBook Air uses compared to my iPad. How much time a month I'm spending on Redtube. Any suggestions or advice on rolling my own?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
evol262 posted:It's not worth the effort to roll your own. I've used PFsense plenty of times in the past and while it's great, it's not Linux and I'll eventually tire of not being able to just ssh in and run xxxx.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
SSH was a bad example - a better example would be trying out some new program to plot graphs of traffic or put a web interface on statistic that I'm trying to play with
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Well it seems my awful ISP has decided to replace the default router interface with their own GUI, which helpfully doesn't include any of the QoS options present in the manual for the actual device. Wondrous. Can you just buy some Pentium 4 on Craigslist and stick a PFsense box or m0n0wall in there?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
Scenario: Two people working from home. Toddlers or nanny streaming. Currently we have 150mb cable internet which is fine. It goes out once in a while, though. Modem is connected to a TPLink wifi router and also a generic 8 port switch with TV wired in as well as 2 computers each in different rooms. Would like to get AT&T Internet because it's only $50 a month, even if it's only 50mb. I'd like to use both connections in the following scenario: One person and the streaming basically uses the cable, the other person's uses AT&T. If either connection goes out, then ALL the traffic goes out the working interface. This should be pretty basic, ip address group 1 uses a different order than ip address group 2. I'm not worried about any kind of filtering or AV or anything like that. I haven't played with PfSense in a while but is this something it can do, and on what hardware? Or do I need to get a tiny Fortigate/Sonicwall (would probably be like $400 so ugh).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2021 21:04
|
|
|
Hughmoris posted:Hardware chat advice needed. Yes. They usually won't even support putting the cable into a splitter or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
n0tqu1tesane posted:The outbuilding going to be put through conduit in a trench? What's the total distance on that going to be? That would really be the only location I'd consider doing fiber to. Fiber generally handles dampness in a conduit better than copper in the long run. Also your house won't get electrocuted from lightning like the 8 bit guy
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2022 16:20
|
|