Small Business Network Setup

[mhenein]

Long time reader, first time poster. Sorry if the question is in the wrong forum.

I am currently trying to revamp my dad’s networking setup at his business, it was much worse than the drawing below at one point. We currently have dedicated fiber internet 20/20 going into our building to a simple 5-port switch, which is then split into 2 Routers. The routers connect to each room via a 24 port switch and patch panel. Each room has 2 Ethernet ports and there are roughly 30+ rooms. Each client then has their own router.

Each room is basically a separate client, they do not require any networking or printer sharing within the office just a reliable internet connection. Since much has changed since this was implemented, what is the most efficient way to divide internet amongst a number of rooms?


Long story short

Equipment:
Modem, Fiber 20/20 > Switch > 2 Routers > 24-port gigabit Switches > clients with their own routers

Question: Is there a better way to divide internet?

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c393/mykie13/Presentation1.jpg

 

[anotherdrew]

What do you mean by better/more efficient? Are we talking about your costs or are you trying to be more equitable?

Do you know the throughput of each router?

How many IP addresses do you have?

 

[mhenein]

I wanted to know if there is a better method that I could implement for the building?

Just to make things clear, there isn't any actual issue with the current setup. But the routers are older Cisco (wrvs4400n) routers, nothing wrong with them yet, but I'd rather upgrade instead of waiting until we do have issues.

We currently have 5 static IP addresses from our ISP. My plan was to set up 3 routers, one for each switch, so that I can easily diagnose any issues down the line. If one should go stop working then I wouldn't have the entire building freak out on me.

 

[anotherdrew]

Better ... better for whom and in what regard? There are always tradeoffs.

Based on some cursory reading, one router should be able to serve all your clients. This would give you the opportunity for a much simpler network. Simpler can be good, but it does not necessarily mean more robust (which you mentioned). To add redundancy, I would consider using router 1 to serve ethernet port 1 in each room and router 2 to serve ethernet port 2 in each room (this assumes there is only 1 client per room). You could then expand this to 4 routers if you wanted with 2 clusters of 2. Thus, if 1 routers goes down, half the rooms have 1 port working and half have both.

Now, if you wanted to provide premier service to some VIP customers (for a charge), you could replace the 5 port switch with a router that can do QoS. Then put VIP customers on router 1 (or cluster 1) and regular customers on router 2 (or cluster 2). This would allow you to provide some dedicated bandwidth to those customers that might do video conferencing or other high bandwidth activities.

You mentioned that most of your customers have their own routers and you have 5 IP addresses. I assume that means many of your customers are double NATing. Most of the time this does not cause an issue, but it can. If you were to get a block of 64 addresses you could supply a separate dedicated IP address to each room. Your equipment would do do no NAT, no firewall, no DHCP ... possibility better for the customer, but definitely more expensive for you (unless you went to IPv6 and depending on your ISP IPv6 allotment).

So, examples of how to make your system
1. simpler
2. same complexity, but more redundant (robust)
3. slightly more complex, but much more redudant
4. slightly more complex, but potentially more lucrative
5. simpler and very good for the customer, but expensive for you

 

[mhenein]

Thank you anotherdrew for your input, this helped me realize what I need most. I need reliability first and ease of use second. So my solution lies somewhere between #2 & #3 of your list. I do like the idea of providing QOS service, but I would consider that at a later date when we are able to get a faster speed into the building. You are correct some are double NATing, but some don’t have a router at all so???

Getting a block of 64 addresses would be insanely expensive as we are already paying $1000+ for the buildings mediocre internet.

As you mentioned, getting one router for Ethernet port 1 and another router for Ethernet port 2 in each room would work, but not all clients use both ports. Most offices are fairly small (150sqft +/-) so the clients often plug their router into one port and plug in each device to their own router leaving the second port unused. The other issue would be going back to each room and verifying which ports are which, as some are no longer numbered. Only a few clients connect their equipment directly to the wall jacks without a router.

I think at this point I will upgrade the routers/switches and add a third router. That way there is one router for each switch. Any suggestions for a switch/router for this situation? We do not provide WI-Fi, since most have their own routers, its never really been an issue. I was considering going with Ubiquiti since I can add some of their mesh AP across the building at a later date since there are Cat5e cables everywhere it should be easy to do.

 

[anotherdrew]

It's a good plan and gives you headroom to grow.

I have read a lot of good things about the Ubiquiti hardware, but have never used any myself. I got close to buying some a couple times, but my 5 year old router is still chugging along. As a fellow business owner, why spend money if you don't have to ... even if the stuff sounds super cool.

Get those ethernet cables labeled. Better now than when someone is screaming at you.