For some reason they will sometimes connect to an access point 300 yards away and get a weak connection, which drops in the middle of doing work. However, they also have some regular PC workstations for printing pick tickets, returns, looking things up, etc. Handheld scanners are used by pickers and seamlessly switches from one access point to another as the picker moves about the warehouse. They all ended up going to the main router. We have a huge (600,000 sq feet) warehouse that is filled with access points. Here is a good reason to have multiple routers and subnets. Performance becomes an issue on a router when Mbps (bits/sec) or Mpps (packets/sec) realistic maximums are hit among other things and less about how many subnets are behind it unless it's handling a large number of networks that requires a lot of Mbps and Mpps throughput. Only a limited number of directly connected subnets will go to a router which handles routing for a far larger number of networks. This is more of a scalability issue than performance. Is there a performance benefit of having multiple subnets behind a router? R1 would need either a static route or a dynamic routing protocol to learn about sC and that it should send packets destined for sC to R2 (next-hop). R1 is only directly connected to sA, R2 is directly connected to sA and sB, and R3 is directly connected to sB and sC. sB-sC are behind R2, and only sC is behind R3. R1įrom the perspective of R1 and looking down, sA-sC are "behind" router R1. The routers could be at separate physical locations. The use-case could be three routers R1-R3 and three subnets sA-sC as described below. Stating "behind a router" doesn't mean directly connected. Is there a use-case to have multiple subnets behind a router? The router is a traffic cop that needs to know which paths to take this is learned from the connected interfaces it has or through either static routes or a dynamic routing protocol. And when speaking of subnet masks, these are meaningless without applying to a network prefix - 192.0.2.0/16 (255.255.0.0) is a different network from 192.0.2.0/24 (255.255.255.0). You're confusing routes from connected interfaces with routes that the router knows are off in the distance (i.e., not directly connected). The very purpose of a router is for reachability to multiple other networks or subnets. Is is possible to have multiple subnets behind a router? Keeping these answers deliberately simple for the simple questions asked. You talk about the traffic ending up on the same router, and it does, but the traffic is still separated unless you specifically allow it to move between the subnets. In this example, there are two subnets (one for data, and one for voice) living "behind" the router.ģ) The performance benefit is that you don't need a different physical device to handle the routing for every single subnet in your network. Each subnet would terminate on its own "sub interface", a logical partitioning of the physical connection to the access switches. Each VLAN will have a separate subnet back on our router. There is, of course, a need for separation of the Voice and Data traffic, which can be achieved by using separate VLANS on the access switches. At this site, there is a router connected via Dot1q trunking to a layer 2 access switch. Take for a simple example, a branch office location with VoIP telephones. This aggregation and routing of traffic for many networks/ subnets is the purpose of a router. (More on that in a moment.)Ģ) There are many use cases. However, your example of using a /16 subnet mask on the LAN interface, with many /24's connecting to it, is not exactly how it would actually function. Is there a performance benefit to have computers belonging to multiple subnet's connected to one router?ġ) It is possible to have multiple subnets "behind" one router the Internet would be a very broken place with millions more routers needed if it were not. Is there a usecase to have computers belonging to multiple subnet's connected to one router? Is is possible to have computers belonging to multiple subnet's connected to one router? Thanks for all the answers but let me rephrase the questions. I think there some confusion due to the wording i used. However, in this case all the traffic meant for multiple subnets is ending up on the same router. One of the uses of a subnet is to separate traffic between different set of users. Is there a performance benefit of having multiple subnets behind a router? Again, i don't see any. Is there a usecase to have multiple subnets behind a router? I don't see any, unless anybody else can point out otherwise. router LAN interface would have subnet mask 255.255.0.0 and machines connecting to the router would have subnet mask 255.255.255.0. Is is possible to have multiple subnets behind a router? I believe it is, e.g.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |