Will this work? (network layout)

[Could_Be_Anyone]

A--|____
____|----Linksys Router|----------|3Com Hub|------>Internet
B--| | (10 MB/sec)
|
|
C

Basically, EQ running on machines A or B which are behind Linksys Wireless router (using wired connections), with showeq on Linux machine C. Both the linux box, and the uplink from the Linksys go into ports of the 3Com hub, and then from the hub's uplink to the Internet via my NAT/Firwall box.

It's the only topology I can think of which allows A & B to be on 100MB/sec for file sharing and still allowing C to "see" the traffic.

[purple]

That will be fine.

[Freakyuno]

The other configuration that would allow C to see the traffic would be to use it inline infront of A & B between the internet and the client running EQ. It can either sit behind and use simple pass through internet sharing, or you could have it do NAT and eliminate the router.

Your solution is just fine. But the availability of true hubs is getting slim, so it's nice to know there are solutions where you dont need them.




A--|___
____|--Linux Box / Linksys Router | --->Internet
B--|

[Tor K'tal]

Freakyuno wrote



A--|____
____|--Linux Box / Linksys Router | --->Internet
B--|I'm not understanding your suggestion Freakyuno :confused: .

Are you suggesting he put 3 NICs in his linux box? Using cross over cables to connect machine A and B to it. Turning it into a Bridge and connecting it to his Linksys Router? Seems like a lot more work.

He mentioned in his post that his network is a little more complex.
EQ machines --> Linxksys Router --> (where the hub would go) --> firewall/NAT device --> internet

The only thing I can think he might run into as a problem is if his linksys is also doing NAT/PAT or some kind, in which case he would have to use session tracking. But if it is only acting a switch so he has more ports on his network, it wouldn't be an issue.

Personally I have


Internal Network --> Big Switch (24 port) --> Hub --> NAT Device --> internet
|
ShowEQ
And since I Don't get anywhere near 10Mbps of speed across my internet connnection, having the hub in that location has absolutely no effect of my internet speed. Nor does it effect my file transfers across my internal network.

~ TK

P.S. Please replace he's with she's and his' with her's if applicable

[Fatal]

Why not do it this way?



A--|_________
_________| Hub ---Linksys Router------->Internet
B--| |
|
|
C



Your way works fine, but putting the hb behind the router will save you any issues that may arise from having the nat'd boxes on one side of the router and the sniffer (unix box) on the other.

[Tor K'tal]

Fatal he says why...
Are you guys reading the text he put with his picture?

His hub is only 10Mbps and he wants to be able to transfer files between machine A and B at 100Mbps. Hense the desire to go through a switch (probably the one built into his Linksys (wireless) Router). He further goes on to say that there is another device between the hub and the internet (my guess is a really good cable modem or dsl router) that acts as a firewall and nat device, which wasn't drawn in the picture.

I'm just guessing but I would bet he doesn't have the linksys device doing NAT, it's just connecting his wired computers to his wireless computers.

~ TK

[Freakyuno]

No need to use 3 nics, although 2 would be required. Basically eliminate the hub entirely. Connect his linux box to the internet, and his router to the linux box.

It is more complicated, but it does get legacy hardware off the network. There is also a suggestion somewhere in the forums where a user used arp poisoning to route through the linux box, even though the physicall route would be much shorter not to.

There are lots of ways to do it, broadcasting all the routers traffic through the hub so that the linux box can see the traffic is by far the simplest, but it's not the most efficient.

The network traffic and latency you'll recieve backplaning everything through that hub to the internet would absolutly suck if you wanted more than about 5 computers behind that router, however he only needs 2 behind it at the moment, so saturating a 10mbit hub on a standard broadband connection is not likely or plausable.

Looking at my diagram, I actually have the linux box and the router reversed. They should be the other way around for the most efficent solution.

[Tor K'tal]

okay, that would make sense, Freakyuno.



A ------ Linksys Wireless Router ---- Linuxbox (bridging or routing and ShowEQ) --- firewall/nat device --- internet
B ------/
Just depends on distance on cable runs, maybe it's just too inconvient to have the box act as a passthrough type device to sniff the packets off of.

You are also saying, due to it going in this fassion
switch --- hub --- firewall/nat ---internet
|
ShowEQ where there is 3 devices on the hub (total of 3 ports used). That will increase the rate at which his internet bandwidth will fill up? I will admit his internet badwidth will most likely fill up far before his hub reaches saturation level with only 3 devices on it, unless he gets 4+Mbps on the internet access front... if so, does he you need a room mate?.

The math behind the reasoning
Rule of thumb about hubs. Total speed of the hub divided by the number of devices on the hub. 10Mbps / 3 = 3.33333Mbps effective rate or slightly less. That is if all the machines are talking at their maximum capacity (CSMA/CD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_sense_multiple_access_with_collision_detec tion), having found that I noticed this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet). I have not read that second one through completely yet, but looks pretty good), which means they have negotiated out their timing so they all get an equal peice of pie. But if a machine has no need to send data it doesn't try and break in, thus allowing the machines that are talking to get a slightly faster rate.

~ TK

[devilspawn]

Would this workk ?


A----|\
B----|--- Four Port Router ------ Cable ----- Internet
C----|/

[purple]

Not unless the router is nice and lets you do port mirroring or if you set up arp poisoning.

[Fatal]

sorry. yeah. I missed that part :P

[Could_Be_Anyone]

Fatal he says why...
Are you guys reading the text he put with his picture?

His hub is only 10Mbps and he wants to be able to transfer files between machine A and B at 100Mbps. Hense the desire to go through a switch (probably the one built into his Linksys (wireless) Router). He further goes on to say that there is another device between the hub and the internet (my guess is a really good cable modem or dsl router) that acts as a firewall and nat device, which wasn't drawn in the picture.

I'm just guessing but I would bet he doesn't have the linksys device doing NAT, it's just connecting his wired computers to his wireless computers.

~ TK

Not a bad guess. The upstream device heading to the 'net is an old P3@1Ghz running FreeBSD that does NAT/Firewalling/Cached DNS/DHCP/etc for my network, and that goes to the 'net via a DSL modem. I could just as easily use a switch instead of the Linksys router, but I got the Linksys for 10 bucks. (or a true 100 hub, if I could get my hands on one). And I want to keep FreeBSD as the firewall/NAT solution 'cause in comparison to FreeBSD's firewall rules, Linux rulesets give me headaches. :p

Additionally, there are a few other machines on the same subnet as A & B, but since they don't play EQ, they aren't relevant to this discussion.

Thanks for the replies, folks.

[purple]

Be sure to read the first reply that says you'll be fine and don't let the rest of the people scare you. Worst case you'll need to turn on session tracking (Network->Session Tracking in seq) if you do it the way you originally pictured it, but only if the internal linksys router is doing NAT. When you need to choose between A or B, just do Network->Monitor Next EQ Client Seen and zone with the computer you want seq to pickup on.

[mastrrob]

what about this...


EQ---- HUB ---- INTERNET
--------|
--------|
-------SEQ

I know its not the safest senario but would it work?

[uRit1u2CBBA=]

As long as it is a true hub vs. a switch/router, yes. You'd be getting 2 IP addresses from your ISP, which is generally frowned upon unless your willing to pay extra $$$.

[purple]

A cheap router that will do NAT and firewall is like 40 bucks, isn't it? You'll save that much in hassle over the time you have it by not having a windows box directly on the net. Plus if you don't know what you're doing, the linux box directly on the net isn't gonna be any better.

If you really seriously have to make that work that way, it will work fine.

If you don't want to run afoul of your ISP, I'd leave the seq box off the network (no routes setup, no ip) most of the time and just sniff with it. When you needed to update seq or your linux box, I'd turn off the EQ box and request an ip address on the linux box, use it, then release the ip on linux and turn the EQ box back on. Then you won't be doing anything wrong in the eyes of your ISP. The only annoying part would be when you wanted to move files between your linux box and windows box.

But really, I'd buy a cheapass NAT/Firewall router.

[uRit1u2CBBA=]

Even if doing that, he could still pull a 2nd IP address due to the unique MAC addresses on the cards. Even if both are not used at the same time, it's still 2 IP addresses.

I'd look into a cheap router to go between the cable/DSL modem and the hub if possible, just as purple suggested.