Network setup for 2 buidlings with 2 dsl connections

[DrunkenLizard]

Looking for advice on how to setup a network for two buildings and best make use of resources. Each building has a dsl modem and a mixed environment of windows, mac, and linux machines. Building 1 currently houses multiple nas, a vm server, and several other servers. Ideally each location will have it's own wap. Both buildings need access to several vm's and the servers and I'd like some of the vm's and servers to use the dsl connection at building 2 for off site backups and pulling down files off the web.

I should mention these buildings are only about 20 ft away so cable runs between building 1's wiring closet and building 2's utility room shouldn't exceed 100 ft.

Any advice or suggestions on how to accomplish this or what is feasible is appreciated.

 

[electron]

I would probably run a network cable, and use 2 routers to connect the networks. It's the most secure and efficient method. Probably also the cheapest as you can use old wireless routers (with the wireless components disabled) to do the routing between the networks. Here is a quick an very abstract example:

You'll have to add some static routes, but that's about it.

 

[linuxha]

I should mention these buildings are only about 20 ft away so cable runs between building 1's wiring closet and building 2's utility room shouldn't exceed 100 ft.

From the description you gave, I'm guessing this is a small network. If I'm wrong, sorry. So I'll try to stay on the low cost side (DSLAMs are not expensive, so there are other solutions but this start to get complex also).

If the buildings are only 20 feet across you can get away with DSL. See if you can find SHDSL that can be setup as CO or CPE mode. This way you can set them up as back to back. With SHDSL you can get 4m (with 4 wire, only 2M with 2 wire) symetrical speed. You can't do that with ADSL. ADSL doesn't support back-to-back connectivity.

Of course you have all 4 pairs then why not try 10 or 100M (10/100BaseT). It support 300 ft (300 meters actually). If you have a conduit between the building then drop CAT6 into it and run 1G. At minimal, you'd need a switch on each end to bridge the 2 buildings, Of course routing may make more sense if there's a lot of broadcasting going on.

Another option is to setup a wireless network between the 2 buildings. I'd recommend directional wireless antennas and a couple of nice B/G/N units. I don't know what the weather is like, weather birds will be a problem or even if you're allowed to attach antennas to the buildings.

 

[DrunkenLizard]

Thanks Dan, do you think I'll run into any issues streaming hd between buildings and large file transfers if I use routers with gigabit Ethernet?

 

[Frunple]

Why not just put them both on the same network segment??
BTW, ethernet max distance is 100 meters, not 300 as posted above. Comes to something like 324 feet or so.

 

[electron]

Thanks Dan, do you think I'll run into any issues streaming hd between buildings and large file transfers if I use routers with gigabit Ethernet?

I do all of this with a 100Mb connection, so Gig-E will only improve the situation

 

[DrunkenLizard]

Thanks everyone, Dan's solution seems the simplest to implement. Though I think I'll run some extra cat5e when I run the conduit.

Linuxha, Yeah I don't think wireless would be the best option here, I just prefer hardwired whenever possible for simplicity and security. In a rural area, only 1 ISP so dsl is the only option outside of hughesnet which I would never want to use.

 

[linuxha]

Why not just put them both on the same network segment??
BTW, ethernet max distance is 100 meters, not 300 as posted above. Comes to something like 324 feet or so.

Dang, did it again. It wasn't what I was thinking but it is what I wrote (Dyslexics of the world untie!). You are correct 300ft/100m.

 

[electron]

The one thing to keep in mind is that you might have to deal with port forwarding if you can't change the router into a dumb router (not sure if the cheap routers let you do this). Putting both locations on the same network segment is not a bad idea if you are in control of both locations.

 

[pete_c]

I would agree with combining the networks for ease of management purposes.

Taking it to the next step I would also combine the internet access.

1 - Internet access to one - cost savings and ease of managment
2 - Keep the two and use one for failover for redundancy
3 - Combine the two for better throughput.
4 - Or use one ISP for more or less open wireless ISP connectivity for vendors or guests and one ISP for internal.
5 - Keep one DSL ISP connection only for backups etc and the other one for users to ISP; dedicated.

 

[gcimmino]

Depends on how much bandwidth you need to the net.

I have a trenched connection betwen two buildings with Cat5 between them. It's all one big network with gigabit switches. There is an AP in each building for wireless access.

Google "Dual WAN routers" and you'll see devices that would let you have two internet connections either for load sharing or fault tolerance.

In short, separate out the various requirements for wireless access, bandwidth, security between segments, etc. No reason to not wire the two buildings and then do whatever makes business sense. Depending on how you run the wiring, you may want to look at surge supressors at each end of the "outdoor" run.

 

[tmbrown97]

What I'd personally do:

Run some conduit - better, faster, more reliable, and seems to be your preference anyways.

Get a dual-wan router - this will support failover and load balancing. Probably something like this: http://www.newegg.co...2-380-_-Product

Now the fun part - how do you use dual-WAN's when they're in separate buildings? Well two options - either run a second wire in the conduit dedicated to the WAN, or implement VLAN-capable switches. The latter is my preference - because with the above router, you should be able to create a secure lan, a less secure WLAN, and throw the backhaul to the second ISP connection on a VLAN as well. Netgear makes a line of pro-smart switches that aren't full managed switches but have VLAN capability in them - and they're pretty inexpensive. Here's one: http://www.newegg.co...2-380-_-Product - and they come in 5,8,16,24 port models - and even one that's 8-port, 4 of which are POE (handy for powering WAPs).

That would give you the ability to segment things out all on the same wire... and if you're running gigabit, WAN traffic or even WLAN won't relaly be enough to take a big dent out of your 1GB connection.

And for those following along, yes - ~350ft is the max for ethernet - GigE will run fine up to about those lengths even on old Cat5 (not even Cat5E) and generally work just fine despite the hype over Cat6 or better. If you need longer ranges than that, you just need a LAN extender - those can go up into the thousands of feet depending on the speed you need - and many will run on one or two phone pairs - not even requiring Cat5.

 

[pete_c]

Domminick

What's your budget?

 

[troymt]

Who is your DSL provider? Do you know what they feed the DSLAM with?

 

[video321]

If these buildings are not on the same electrical system and bonded then I would highly recommend running fiber between them instead of any copper. It doesn't cost all that much and gives you a fully reliable 100Mb or 1Gb connection without any surge concerns.