On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 23:50 +0530, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
> On 2/27/06, Arun K. Khan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think one can only cascade unmanaged hubs/switches. The above topology
> > was causing confusion within the switches, especially the wireless
> > router (connected to all three switches) as to which port of the two
> > ports to send the ethernet frame. I think only intelligent hub/switches
> > can figure out paths for transmission, reserving the others for fail
> > overs.
>
> I think the OPs terminology is a bit confusing as well. Is he using
> switches? What kind of switches is he using? or is he using routers?
> again what kind? whats the model no? and why is he required to
> frequently reboot them?
Agree with your last question about rebooting the router - why?
As for the topology, I understood what the OP was trying to say. This
is what I understood.
WAN
|
|
====== A (DSL router w/WLAN and 3 wired port switch)
========== B (8 wired port switch)
========== C (8 wired port switch)
========== D (8 port switch)
(1) A - is connected to B, C, and D
(2) B - is connected to C and A as in (1)
(3) C - is connected to D and A as in (1)
(4) D - is connected to B and A as in (1)
The only thing that was not clear to me was whether he is using
intelligent switches or vanilla unmanaged switches. From the little I
read about ethernet topology, I don't think above is kosher and that is
why things were not working.
B, C, and D cascaded with any _one_ of them connected to A is OK. That
way when A is hosed at least the PCs on the LAN can communicate - which
is what the OP finally did IIRC.
--
Arun Khan
Linux is like a wigwam - no gates, no windows, apache inside
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
