Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #927 > unrolled thread

connecting 3 computers without a router

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.networking

Contents

  connecting 3 computers without a router "Orson Cart" <ex-privat@parts.org> - 2011-12-26 01:58 +0100
    Re: connecting 3 computers without a router Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2011-12-26 11:26 +0100
      Re: connecting 3 computers without a router Lew Pitcher <lpitcher@teksavvy.com> - 2011-12-26 18:46 -0800
        Re: connecting 3 computers without a router Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2011-12-27 10:45 +0100
    Re: connecting 3 computers without a router Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> - 2011-12-29 17:33 +0000
      Re: connecting 3 computers without a router Bernhard Kupfer <nntp@compukiller.net> - 2011-12-29 22:14 +0100
    Re: connecting 3 computers without a router David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-12-30 15:13 -0800
      Re: connecting 3 computers without a router Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> - 2011-12-31 10:40 -0800
    Re: connecting 3 computers without a router Christian Brandt <brandtc@psi5.com> - 2012-01-13 14:11 +0100

#927 — connecting 3 computers without a router

Suppose I have 3 pizza boxes, each has 2 x 1 Gbps ethernet ports.
If I connect each to both of the others with crossover cables,
I eliminate the delay of a router.
Is this topology used by anybody? Does it have a name?
Any hidden surprises?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#928

Hello,

Orson Cart a écrit :
> Suppose I have 3 pizza boxes, each has 2 x 1 Gbps ethernet ports.
> If I connect each to both of the others with crossover cables,

If the ports have automatic MDI/MDI-X configuration, you can use
straight cables.

> I eliminate the delay of a router.

The device used to interconnect nodes in a network is a switch, not a
router. A router is used to interconnect networks.

> Is this topology used by anybody? Does it have a name?

I would say that's a kind of point-to-point topology.

> Any hidden surprises?

As each link is a separate network, you cannot send a single broadcast
to all hosts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#929

On Dec 26, 5:26 am, Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-s...@plouf.fr.eu.org>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Orson Cart a écrit :
>
> > Suppose I have 3 pizza boxes, each has 2 x 1 Gbps ethernet ports.
> > If I connect each to both of the others with crossover cables,
>
> If the ports have automatic MDI/MDI-X configuration, you can use
> straight cables.
>
> > I eliminate the delay of a router.
>
> The device used to interconnect nodes in a network is a switch, not a
> router. A router is used to interconnect networks.
>
> > Is this topology used by anybody? Does it have a name?
>
> I would say that's a kind of point-to-point topology.
>
> > Any hidden surprises?
>
> As each link is a separate network, you cannot send a single broadcast
> to all hosts.

Assuming that the OP has enough knowledge to properly set up the three
boxen (assigning proper IP addresses & subnet masks, setting proper
values in his static route definitions, providing proper /etc/hosts
values, etc.), then he /might/ have enough knowledge to be able to
hide the middle boxes two connections under a single "bridge" device.

That way, all three hosts can reside on the same network, with the
middle host moving packets for the end systems across the (hidden)
physical interfaces.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#930

Lew Pitcher a écrit :
>>
>> Orson Cart a écrit :
>>>
>>> Suppose I have 3 pizza boxes, each has 2 x 1 Gbps ethernet ports.
>>> If I connect each to both of the others with crossover cables,
>>>
>>> I eliminate the delay of a router.
[...]
> Assuming that the OP has enough knowledge to properly set up the three
> boxen (assigning proper IP addresses & subnet masks, setting proper
> values in his static route definitions, providing proper /etc/hosts
> values, etc.), then he /might/ have enough knowledge to be able to
> hide the middle boxes two connections under a single "bridge" device.

Middle box ? IIUC the OP's design, each box is directly connected to the
two others, in a triangle topology. A middle box acting as a bridge
introduces at least as much forwarding delay between the two other boxes
as a switch would. Even in the triangle topology, creating a bridge on
each box would require to enable STP (Spanning Tree Protocol) to avoid
loops ; that would effectively disable on of the links and result in one
box being in the middle.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#933

Orson Cart <ex-privat@parts.org> wrote:
> 
> Suppose I have 3 pizza boxes, each has 2 x 1 Gbps ethernet ports.
> If I connect each to both of the others with crossover cables,

You are unlikely to need a crossover cable with gigabit ports.
Even fairly recent 10/100 NICS/switches will automatically links
with straight cables.

> I eliminate the delay of a router.
> Is this topology used by anybody? Does it have a name?

You could call it either a "ring" or a set of point to point
links.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#935

Mark Evans wrote:

> Orson Cart <ex-privat@parts.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Suppose I have 3 pizza boxes, each has 2 x 1 Gbps ethernet ports.
>> If I connect each to both of the others with crossover cables,
> 
> You are unlikely to need a crossover cable with gigabit ports.
> Even fairly recent 10/100 NICS/switches will automatically links
> with straight cables.
> 
>> I eliminate the delay of a router.
>> Is this topology used by anybody? Does it have a name?
> 
> You could call it either a "ring" or a set of point to point
> links.

Guess the delay by your systems having to ask their own routing tables 
is much higher then the delay a switch (wich routes on OSI Level 2) 
would have. Your router has a switch builtin, with the router as 
another device on an internal port, not being asked for local 
transmissions.

Bernhard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#936

On Dec 25, 4:58 pm, "Orson Cart" <ex-pri...@parts.org> wrote:

> Suppose I have 3 pizza boxes, each has 2 x 1 Gbps ethernet ports.
> If I connect each to both of the others with crossover cables,
> I eliminate the delay of a router.
> Is this topology used by anybody? Does it have a name?
> Any hidden surprises?

You don't need crossover cables for Gigabit. That topology is used,
it's called point-to-point. What it eliminates is not routing but
switching. Switching delay is generally considered negligible, but
there are some applications where minimizing it helps, and Gigabit
ports tend to be pretty cheap.

DS

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#938

On 12/30/2011 3:13 PM, David Schwartz wrote:
> On Dec 25, 4:58 pm, "Orson Cart" <ex-pri...@parts.org> wrote:
> 
>> Suppose I have 3 pizza boxes, each has 2 x 1 Gbps ethernet ports.
>> If I connect each to both of the others with crossover cables,
>> I eliminate the delay of a router.
>> Is this topology used by anybody? Does it have a name?
>> Any hidden surprises?
> 
> You don't need crossover cables for Gigabit. That topology is used,
> it's called point-to-point. What it eliminates is not routing but
> switching. Switching delay is generally considered negligible, but
> there are some applications where minimizing it helps, and Gigabit
> ports tend to be pretty cheap.

There's a big difference between "cheap" and "inexpensive"; quality
can be inexpensive:

<http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833106033>

<http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/network-adapters/gigabit-network-adapters/gigabit-ct-desktop-adapter.html>

<http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/product-brief/gigabit-ct-desktop-adapter-brief.pdf>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#968

Am 26.12.2011 01:58, schrieb Orson Cart:
> Suppose I have 3 pizza boxes, each has 2 x 1 Gbps ethernet ports.
> If I connect each to both of the others with crossover cables,
> I eliminate the delay of a router.

> Is this topology used by anybody?

 Token Ring - dead fish in the water.

> Does it have a name?

 emergency solution, misuse of resources.

 Connect all ports to a single switch and enjoy 2GBit throughput by port
trunking. This will easily outperform a million times the penalties of a
switch.

> Any hidden surprises?

 You might safe 0.1ms by sacrificing nearly all conformity to normal
TCP-Networks. If you do not know what you are doing thing might get
interesting for the uninvolved observer.

 Christian Brandt

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.networking

csiph-web