[master4g]

I looked around on the web and most people were stating that they were getting between 20-50 users at a time connected to the router. I am referring to a regular consumer "plastic" router. Some stated that you shouldn't exceed 20 at a time.

Now here is my question. If I had another gateway between the router and 40ish users, would that count as just one conenction or 40? I would want to use something like a Linksys WRT310N and have about three connections at once. Two of them will be regular computers, and the third will be a Untangle server set up as a gateway, with 40 users connected to it.

Setup: Docsis 3.0 modem (50mbps down/10 up)----->router-------->3 wired connections (2 desktops, 1 Untange gateway box)----->The untange gateway box will connect to unmanaged swiches which will ultimately reach 40 users.

This will mean that the router will be handling traffic from 42 users, but in actuality it is only connected to 3 users.

Do you think the router will be able to handle? for a long period of time? maybe with dd-wrt. The router is supposed to perform 136mbps LAN to WAN throughput. Everything would be wired (wireless will be disabled). If not, which small/medium business router would you recommend? Nothing more than 200$

[JohnWill]

You might get away with this router, though I suspect stepping up to a business class router is a better idea.

[zx10guy]

So instead of running a dedicated routing appliance, you're going to use software on a PC? I thought you were trying to simplify O&M not make it worse?

I have experience with two Netgear SMB routers. The FVS318 and the FVS338. Both great rock solid routers. The FVS338 has newer and faster hardware than the FVS318.

[master4g]

Thank You.

Untangle does many things we would like to do, much more than our current squid setup. And the good part is that it is a transparent proxy so if it doesn't work out, it is easily removable by just changing the ip address of the router to the ip address on the Untangle gateway. Our current system with squid had the following problems: 1) when the power went out (not too often), someone would have to go turn on the server back on, and until that happends, everyone is offline. 2) before last year, the hard drive on the server was only couple of GB. Also, there was an older version of red hat installled which didn't allow us to change the size of the "VAR" segment so we were stuck with 300mb to store all the log files. When sunday would come around, the log files would rotate and the segment would get full and squid would stop, so we would have the clear the logs every 2 weeks.. If we disabled logging, there was no problem.

Both of those shouldn't be a problem anymore. 1) I looked into it and it seems there should be a bios setting to repower after outage (I will check the server today). 2) I took in my own 160gb last year and set it up using that.

About those routers, I like the price of the FVS318, but it only does 7mbps LAN to WAN thourhput (according to the site you linked earlier) so that wont work. The other router wasn't listed on that site but according to a google search it does 90mbs. The price is also pretty good. The last one that sold on ebay (used) went for 97$. This is a serious candidate. It looks to be more solid than the Linksys wrt310n "plastic", but that linksys is rated for 136mbps. currently we wont need the router to do much work as we plan on having the untangle box do the QOS and blocking... but if we decide to remove it later, do you think the linksys loaded with dd-wrt would out perform the netgear? the netgear does seem to be pretty capable though. What do you think?

edit: oh yeah, and one more thing to consider is if we do remove the untangle box (unlikely, but a possible option), then whichever router we choose will then have to deal with all the connections, 43 connections, as opposed to the situation proposed in the OP

[JohnWill]

I wouldn't believe the ratings of 136 mbit WAN <-> LAN, that is dependent on many factors. That seems pretty speedy for standard network traffic, I suspect they "stacked the deck" to be able to quote that figure.

[zx10guy]

First things first. If having internet connectivity is so important, why aren't any of your gear on UPS? Especially PC/server based boxes used as proxies? Any box you use will only be good for a couple of abrupt power outages before you start running into serious issues with file corruption. A UPS is mandatory with any server based setup. Again, you're probably going to bawk at spending the money as you're looking at a UPS which can give status updates to your servers so they can power down gracefully before the batteries run out of juice.

Next thing, log maintenance is always something you have to be proactive with. A syslog server should be a given here and not a luxury as you want all your infrastructure devices to report back to it.

The FVS338 is a very good router. Netgear provides good firmware updates/support for it even to this day despite the router being a few years old. The reason why I mentioned these two routers (the other being the FVS318) is that I own both of them. The FVS338 (along with the FVS318) just runs. I have had both running for months without a reboot unless I do a firmware update. I replaced the FVS318 with the FVS338 because I wanted faster VPN performance. The FVS338 remains in my network stack at home until I work the final bugs out of my Cisco 1861 router which will then replace the FVS338 as my edge router.

[master4g]

@John. Yes, it does seem speedy, but from my understanind, this probably isnt a claim made by linksys. http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/index...art&Itemid=189 is the site where it is listed, and im sure the same procedure is used in testing all those routers. Also, many users claim that their wrt54g goes up to around 25mb (some even said 34, i saw these in a docsis 3 forum about which router is best to use), and the site linked above says that it will go at 54mbps depending on the version. But even if i was able to get half of that 136, I would be happy.

@zx10guy. The power doesnt go out much here. maybe once a year or every other year. And when it does, there is no hope of internet to anyone, becuase then it would require a UPS in the closet with the modem, one where the head switch is, then one in all of those closets under the seperate buildings and one in the actual apartment (which im sure none of them have). Our outages dont last very long either. We have a ups hooked up to our proxy server, but doesn't last long.

[zx10guy]

I'm really trying to grasp what system you have in place. You want to do things cheaply but it seems you want to promise the moon. Your roll is to provide an infrastructure for the residents on these buildings. It's clear to me your responsibility ends where the twisted pair copper ends at the wall jack in each apartment. Why are you making life more difficult for yourself by taking on more than you're obligated to? By adding more work to your plate, you're now creating an expectation for every resident that this is now part of the package even though it isn't.

From what I recall, this is in a low income demographic. Last time I checked, I didn't know internet access is as important as food. As I said before, if you don't have the budget to do this right, scale back the network. It's beyond me why who ever is running this program is going to shut down a central lab but over extend themselves by putting access in every apartment. It's just plain foolish. If the residents are able to spend money on getting another circuit to bypass your restrictions, they can do this on their own but shouldn't be allowed to use your current wiring infrastructure. I would also say if these people are willing to spend extra money on what I consider a luxury when they already have access, then they can chip in that money into your budget to improve the network infrastructure.

[master4g]

Sure, internet could be a luxury, but doesn't mean that if someone is poor they should be deprived of it. That was the main goal behind this computer lab when it opened in 1995 (one of the things that got it so much recognition). Thats why they provide the service for free. The goal was to equip low income familes with tools to move with the times and to adapt these new technologies. It was established to encourage some who are unable to go out and get a conventional job (for whatever reason (disabilities, etc)) to try and use the internet to make some money. There are several families on the property whose means of earning depends on the internet. On top of that, most of the users of this service are students. This complex is located in the heart of the richest county in America, and inside a city which is ranked in the top 100 richest cities in america. Why does that matter? Because the richer classmates of these students had computers with internet access in their cribs. I also live in this city and it wasn't too long ago I went through the school system. Even back when I was there, having internet access was essential for the coursework which was given. Today, the homework isn't handed out in class, they are posted on the class website. Our goal is to to provide these students tools they need to compete. I don't only do the networking, I also help them learn to use the computer, and help them do their homework.

Obviously, my job is to just to be able to provide internet. But I want to go the extra mile and not do that "half a$*" job we talked about earlier while trying to find a solution within the budget and which would serve our networks needs. I want to have these settings (QoS etc) in place so for example, some student has to upload his homework to the class website, I want to make sure that people who are watching porn while download The Simpsons while their brother is in the room playing XBOX live... aren't causing any problem to that student.

Im not sure which part of my project you find as promising the moon. I want to have a internet connection which would handle this many users....connected to a system which would block off certain items and prioritize some over others...connected to the apartments with efficient equpement (fast switches as opposed to hubs). I dont see anything which could be "scaled back"

The majority of the residents who have their own line got it a while back when the internet would go down every sunday at 1AM becuase of the server's hdd being full. The Lab Admin lived far away and didn't care about the place during his off hours, so the internet stayed down until 3PM on Monday. Sundays are heavy homework days for most students. It wasn't just a desire for luxury. There was one student who left her college admission application til the last day so she could have more time revising it... Then when she went to submit.... you can guess the rest.

Lastly, the Apartment complex is in the process of being sold to another management company. They, the new company, decided to continue the internet service as it will cost less than 200$ a month, but they are still considering the fate of the Lab. They have to take into account the operating/hiring costs and the opportunity cost of one less apartment to rent out (The lab is located in one of the apartments, it doesn't have a dedicated building)

[zx10guy]

If the service you're providing is focused on giving kids the ability to do school related activities, then that's what it should be. Having internet access in your home is nice but it still is a LUXURY. Especially, since within their complex, these kids can walk not that far of a distance to get internet service. As you've discovered, people don't always take advantage of help in the manner intended. The way I see it, this is almost the same as people being on public assistance due to being low income but yet having a big screen TV in their living room. If some of these residents are so low income, how can they afford to pay for internet themselves?

I've already stated many times about what I mean by scaling back. Scaling back means to pull back ALL internet access to each apartment. Set up a PROPER network in the existing lab. This will accomplish a number of things. First, the scale is smaller so you can put in a proper infrastructure which if you've designed it correctly will scale out to the other apartments when funds allow. Second, having people come down to the lab will prevent some of the chananigans some of the residents are doing which as you've stated are porn, Xbox, and I'm willing to bet plenty of P2P stuff.

You seem to be very pre-occupied by a lot of what ifs and pleasing everyone. If the new management decides to shut down the lab, then so be it. It's not under your control. You can only deal with the here and now. But I would say if plenty of people are using the lab, then it would be a PR disaster for the management company. Going the extra mile by teaching some of the people ther in the complex about IT is commendable and I find no fault in this. But handing a network connection to every resident while trying to keep peformance/reliability up with no money and letting the residents do what ever they feel like on this network beside the internet restrictions you want to impose is simply crazy. John and I have said numerous times you're just asking for major issues. You run the network, you set the rules. If the residents don't like it, tough. They'll have to live with the restrictions/parameters or as they've already shown....get their own internet service. The whole "beggars can't be choosers" saying comes to mind. Heck even well established public assistance programs and charities scale back when funding is tight.

And before you make assumptions on how I don't know how it is to be low income, I do. I grew up on public assistance for a couple of years before my parents were able to get us off of it. Even though the help was welcomed, my parents were ashamed to be in the situation of needing to take hand outs no matter how well intentioned.

[JohnWill]

The basic problem I see here is a champagne taste and a beer pocketbook. You want to provide a better service than you can afford, it's as simple as that.

As zx10guy guy as stated much more eloquently than I, you are trying to do things way beyond your budget and creating major problems for the network, the management, and yourself.

There is one basic rule that you need to keep in mind. It's easy to give someone something they don't have, but it's VERY difficult to take it away. If you raise the expectations, and then events overtake you and you can't deliver, that will be far uglier than simply not having ever given it in the first place.

[master4g]

The complex only takes in low income families, but it doesn't mean that if people become wealthier over time, they will be kicked out. There are even several new BMW's and Mercedes on the parking lot. Not surprisingly, these happen to be the families who have their own line.

Im an not sure which "high expectations" you guys are talking about. These residents have been receiving free (and problem free, besides the packet dropping problem last month, and the sunday internet problem 2 years ago which lasted about 2 months) internet for 15 years now. The packet dropping problem came around last month, so Im trying to fix things up and make it problem free again, like they are used to. The problem is already fixed, but I noticed the inefficiencies in the network (like the hubs) and wanted to swap them out to prevent problems in the future.

Cutting of the internet to the apartments is silly. There is no added cost in having internet in the apartments besides the fixed cost of getting the new switches, etc. No money would be saved. Telling the residents that they have to come to the lab to use the net, and they con only do it 16 hours a week, and no weekends..would be silly, especially becuase the infrastructure is already in place.

ANYWAYS... there is no point in going back and fourth. I am certainly not in a position I want to be in, and would love to have more money to make things happen, and trust me, I have requested it several time, yet nothing. Just recently it was a huge deal that they even approved 300$ for me to change 3 things (65$ for the fiberoptic solution, 150 for the 6 switches, and the remaining for the router, more than 300, and the rest will come out of my pocket), I dont blame them either, they have some other serious problems to deal with in the complex that need more attention.

The reason I created this new thread to ask this question was because the last one went off topic, and this one has become the same. My question above was strictly a netowking qestion. If there is a gateway between the 40 computers... will the load be less for a router (becuase it has to deal with only 1 ip and connection)? Do you think the Linksys WRT310N can handle? if not, do you have another suggestion within my budget? Can we keep it to that please. I appreciate the networking advice you two have already given, if you have anything else (networking related) to say, please do so.

[master4g]

sorry, please ignore this post

[master4g]

Hey, got some good news. Ive been doing some research on consumer routers and the one the interests me the most right now is the DLink DGL 4300 (or 4100). The wan to lan throughput is enough, and according to smallnetbuilder's website it can handle 1000 simultaneous sessions.

Anyways, Im not sure if you guys are familiar with craigslist.com. Pretty much you can buy used (and also new) stuff locally. I happen to live not too far from Silicon Valley and many times there are classified posts for networking equipment. Some small company goes out of business and then sells all their eqipment. I was browsing around and sometimes they have posts with the Cisco ASA 5505 for $200. I went and talked to my boss today and told her that we can get this consumer router which will do the job, but in terms of stability over time...I cant guarantee.... but this business class router is what we need for our setup. I told her we can get it for around 200 if it comes around and she was hesitant but then approved. She wants to have it before the management takeover so I told her if we cant find it in that time, we can get it new (off newegg) for 350. She pretty much said no for that.

Anyways, my question is : what is the deal with these licences? Is it for VPN accounts? (if so, we wont use vpn). The one on newegg is with 10 licences. Do we need them (or more)? do they need to be renewed?

Thanks

EDIT: I just talked to a seller, im gunna go pick one of these suckers up tonight. 200$ cash. He definitely a legit seller, nothing questionable.

[zx10guy]

You need to check if the ASA has the BUN-K9 license. But the base ASA should have a 10 user license, which means you can have 10 simultaneous remote VPN connections.

It's probably too late, but you also should ask what version code is currently installed on the ASA.