ITTec Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Hi All, I have a query which I believe I know the answer to but just need confirmation that it is right. Basically we now have two sites and in the summer there will be a direct connection (or as direct as BT will allow) put in place. We are getting rid of the servers from Site B and joining the computers from site B to site A's domain. I believe I would need a router or layer 3 switch to point all the switches to Site A. We currently have 1 layer 3 switch so would this be enough to achieve what I need? I admit this isn't my strong point so any help would be appreciated. ITTec
jamesreedersmith Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Depends what technology BT are using to provide the link and how its presented to you.
nicholab Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 You need two router one on each site but have you considered pfsense as the thing doing the routing it will be easier to configure.
ITTec Posted June 24, 2014 Author Posted June 24, 2014 We are getting Ethernet Access Direct 100Mb line between the sites
ITTec Posted June 24, 2014 Author Posted June 24, 2014 You need two router one on each site but have you considered pfsense as the thing doing the routing it will be easier to configure. I admit my knowledge on this isn't great but it was my understanding you could use layer 3 switches to do this? Never used pfsense before but will look into it now Thanks
jamesreedersmith Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 We are getting Ethernet Access Direct 100Mb line between the sites If this is correct no router needed, plug the a end into your lan, the b end into a switch and the link will be trasparent, it will pass all traffic as if it is an extension of your lan, think of it like a fibre link to a remote building.
andyrite Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 We are getting Ethernet Access Direct 100Mb line between the sites How many computers are on the site B?
ITTec Posted June 24, 2014 Author Posted June 24, 2014 If this is correct no router needed, plug the a end into your lan, the b end into a switch and the link will be trasparent, it will pass all traffic as if it is an extension of your lan, think of it like a fibre link to a remote building. Thanks Jamesreedersmith. With it getting closer to the summer I wanted to make sure everything was in place and I started to double guess myself.
Michael Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 I'd still have a DC or RODC at the other end, otherwise all traffic will go down the 100Mbps PTP. 1
ITTec Posted June 24, 2014 Author Posted June 24, 2014 How many computers are on the site B? We have about 40 computers at site B. But at most we will have 30 users logged on with about 10 being logged on from the morning to end of the day so should be able to cope with that.
Michael Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Worse case scenario though, if the PTP link goes down, users at site B are stuffed. If there's a physical server on site, they can still logon and do certain tasks with access to some resources temporarily unavailable. This also minimises traffic over the PTP, so it's only web or replication traffic mostly.
ITTec Posted June 24, 2014 Author Posted June 24, 2014 Worse case scenario though, if the PTP link goes down, users at site B are stuffed. If there's a physical server on site, they can still logon and do certain tasks with access to some resources temporarily unavailable. This also minimises traffic over the PTP, so it's only web or replication traffic mostly. Yeah I understand that, but with most things the decision was financial. Our current network setup is not ideal and it will be migrated within 12 months at which point we will look at this again and see where we stand. The sites are 300 yards apart so we can put workarounds in place if needs be
Jamman960 Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Is there no line of sight between the two sites? we were lucky and just about had a view so managed to get a gigabit laser link in place rather than paying BT for a slower link
ITTec Posted June 24, 2014 Author Posted June 24, 2014 Is there no line of sight between the two sites? we were lucky and just about had a view so managed to get a gigabit laser link in place rather than paying BT for a slower link There is but we were quoted the same price for the same speed by a few different companies so felt we would go with wired over wireless.
Jamman960 Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Ah fair enough. leased lines have changed a fair amount since I looked into it I guess. We were quoted 9k install followed by around 9k/year rental. Laser was 12k install followed by 1.5k maintenance per year, its so reliable that we no longer bother having servers on the other site other than for our "off site" backup
Oaktech Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 God, we have our primary school connected to us via a ligowave 300mbps wireless link, and other than once being blown off point in some exceptional high winds it's been faultless. It cost 3.5 grand total including install. Fit N forget!
dcsdne Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Wanted to chime in with Ubiquiti Airfiber24 we are running 2 pair of these. 1 run is 8 Km running at 900Mbps even in crappy weather. The other is running at 12Km with 750Mbps drops to 650Mbps is crappy weather. Our crappy weather consists of Slushy Snow. 1
Oaktech Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 I'm probably about to do this... it's only going about 100m, but the cost of groundworks alone will make this economical. It would appear that someone forgot to take into account data when they built our new sports hall. Ooops
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now