Standalone network at work

[Bonebreaker777]

Hi,

Need a makeshift network for experimentation at my work. We plan to have a 24x port switch, in a small wall mounted rack, plus a small machine and two wireless AP or routers.

Now, if we will get APs and no discernible router connected anywhere on the network, we can't really expect a DHCP service to function, right? So, it is okay to replace the APs by some routers, or rather have 2x APs and a router in the server rack?

And if so, should we bother with industrial grade models for some little play or any consumer grade would do? The proposed utilisation is 1x or 2x a week, 2-3h at the time 2x or 3x wired/wireless devices connected to the network.

Thank you very much!

[peterb]

Iirc, some APs have a DHCP server built in, or you could put a DHCP server on one of the PCs.

But as you aren't routing anywhere - all your traffic is going to be confined to the network, you could set up static in addresses, or use the default 169.254.0.0/16 link local block. PCs should allocate themselves a random address in that range in the absence of a DHCP server.

[Dashers]

I guess the question is what are you testing? If you're experimenting with networking kit, then you probably want to get similar to what you'd want to use in your live environment. But I'm guessing that's not what you're doing.

Have you thought about using virtualisation and/or VLANs? VLANs are segregated networks running on the same physical networking kit as you have currently. Switches etc will not allow packets tagged with one VLAN to talk to another.

With virtual machines, you can run an entire network from within the confounds of your workstation - I do this frequently at work. I either run a server with DHCP, statically assign, or allow the virtualisation software take care of DHCP.

You can also combine virtual machines with VLANs if you're working in a team.

[Bonebreaker777]

Iirc, some APs have a DHCP server built in, or you could put a DHCP server on one of the PCs.

But as you aren't routing anywhere - all your traffic is going to be confined to the network, you could set up static in addresses, or use the default 169.254.0.0/16 link local block. PCs should allocate themselves a random address in that range in the absence of a DHCP server.

Ah, I haven't thought of the APs that the could do DHCP. Good shout. And no, we can't rely on the default random address assignment as some of the clients connected to the network will be quite dumb.

I guess the question is what are you testing? If you're experimenting with networking kit, then you probably want to get similar to what you'd want to use in your live environment. But I'm guessing that's not what you're doing.
Have you thought about using virtualisation and/or VLANs? VLANs are segregated networks running on the same physical networking kit as you have currently. Switches etc will not allow packets tagged with one VLAN to talk to another.
With virtual machines, you can run an entire network from within the confounds of your workstation - I do this frequently at work. I either run a server with DHCP, statically assign, or allow the virtualisation software take care of DHCP.
You can also combine virtual machines with VLANs if you're working in a team.

Well, the live scenario will be different from customer to customer (depending on their internal IT structure). We just need something for demonstration & testing purposes.

VLAN is a no-go. Our HQ is rather strict in this matter so I can't imagine sharing resources - going as far as I have to call them or mail them to give me access code to the server room to carry out simple tasks.

I understand the convenience behind virtualisation but I don't think I'm there yet (lack of knowledge and admin grade privileges) need more to study and climb higher on the 'ladder'.

EDIT: The idea will be that some network devices will be permanently on the network via Ethernet and people may drift in and connect via wireless to the network to 'play' with the devices. Either using their phones, tablets or laptops.

[Dashers]

I believe you're talking about BYOD. Hot topic that.

[b0redom]

+1 for DHCP on one of the PCs or in a VM. If it's an air gapped network, adding routers is probably not the way to go.

Heck you could even install a DHCP server on a raspberry pi, or some other low powered box. The requirements aren't high, and I presume you're going to have some sort of management node for monitoring etc?

[DanceswithUnix]

It all depends on what you are intending to test.

In the past I have used an old Linux desktop with two network ports as a DHCP server and ip router because that allowed me to configure the firewall exactly how I wanted it.
The network was then set up sort of in reverse compared to how a router would usually work, the point being that this small network being a test facility could easily go rogue and become a source of packet storms etc. If what you were doing was safe, it would just be on the main network right? Usually routers have a firewall to keep fire out, in my case I wanted to contain fire inside.

So you serve DHCP onto the test network, you allow all connections from the main network into the test network but you allow almost nothing routed out. In fact I allowed web traffic to the main office router so that boxes could get operating system updates, but that was it.

In my case I also set up a pxe boot setup for rapid install of Centos so we could set up a "server" farm really fast.

[Bonebreaker777]

I vaguely understand what you're trying to say but this network is going to server as a strictly off-line network for testing, training and demonstration.

Our main network is strictly monitored and governed and nobody is really willing to risk even the slightest interference by some test units.

Nothing nasty or illegal, but for convenience it will be far easier to reset the network or replace individual parts, if something goes wrong - without affecting the productivity, which heavily depends on the main network.

I understand that VM could potentially solve quite a lot of these issues but some devices will be untested when coming in, and we rather connect them to a network compromised of cheap 2nd hand parts, instead of our main network.

The shout about the APs able to fulfill DHCP functions was a good one - no need for a router there. Also I've learned that we'll be given some homebrew distro and not sure what privileges I may end up with - potentially installing nothing beyond the basic configuration.

So far we ordered a single AP and a switch, both supporting PoE and will test a single device with them without the server's presence on the network.

I slightly envy your freedom to be able to configure that far on the office router, I need to fill out a special form even to get permission to update one of the basic packages on my laptop :-D

[Bonebreaker777]

Update:
It's all working nicely now. A 24port switch, a AP and a server running DHCP server + SQL Express

Thanks for all the help!

[Flibb]

We use a similar setup at work, but have a 3COM switch which I assume sorts out the DHCP side of things. Would something like this do what you want
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/3COM-3C164...EAAOSw8GtZQAbK

Our separate network is to give us a place to test analysers away from the main network, our PCs have two network cards one on the test network, other on the main network (or wireless). Seems to work fine.

[Bonebreaker777]

I was running DHCP Server for Windows and it was working surprisingly nicely.

Was running nicely, until the management decided that they would like to have the network access to the internet and demonstrate access outside the LAN (basically WAN to LAN). For which in my understanding I need a router :|

I have two options:
1, We just buy a standalone router
or
2, I attempt to run a software based one, like NAT32 IP Router

Opinions?