network topology

darwinism

Say I have a location with 4 backhauls(wireless links) that connect to switch then the switch uplinks to another backhaul unit to carry the traffic to the gateway router. Each backhaul carries a class C network, which are very under utilized, probably only 20-30 users on each backhaul link. Everything is bridged. I am going to implement a router to help segment the network. Would it be best to get a router with 5 ethernet ports (dont worry about cost) or should i just uplink the switch into the router, then plug the backhaul back to the gateway into the router. This would effectively mean I would need to have 5 IP addresses on one ethernet card. Which is doable with the non-cisco router we would deplay at the given aggregation points. The rest of the infrastructure is cisco.

I prefer the router with 5 ethernet interfaces. The only downside I could see is if you were going to troubleshoot something at the tower there really isnt anything to plug into to run various tests. What do you guys think of pro's and con's for both setups?

Danman32

I don't follow what you are getting at. Perhaps a diagram would make it clearer.

bighornsheep

This is the first time I've heard of the term backhaul btw, it's cool, I learnt something new.
I'm not sure....but is this what you are thinking about?



And your question is...should the switch and bridge be replaced with just a router with 5 ports?

Well....let me try and take a run at this...I think that if your network is in a large (physical) area....and it sounds like it might be...it's a idea to do something like what you're thinking of (what I think you are thinking of), but I dont see the point of the extra bridge between the network and the router. Unless there's some interference zone you are trying to bypass cabling with a wireless link?

I *think* most of the routers that have 5 ethernet ports is simply a 2 port router with one of the port extended to a hub/switch built-in. If my diagram is correct, I think the potential removal of the wireless link seem to make sense for me.

EdTheLad

If you just want to segment the traffic why dont you just create vlans on the switch and trunk to the router?The new router with extra ports will remove the single point of failure on the uplink but you still have a single point of failure on the router.Unless the traffic is getting too much to handle on a single uplink i would just implement vlans and trunk to the router.This solution is assuming i've understood what you want correctly.

Danman32

Here's another take:

For the separate wireless APs, are wireless clients going to be roaming between them? If so, then they all should be on the same IP network. If not, then they can be on different networks.

darwinism

Here is what I was refering too: With 5 seperate interfaces, they are all individual. Its a Routing OS called mikrotik: mikrotik.com. Its widely used in the WISP world.