16 ip....

deksecurity · Post by **deksecurity** » Thu Oct 25, 2001 12:00 am

what can i do with 16 ip i think i will used 1 run to router and that it ...please help thanks....

TEH WIN · Post by **TEH WIN** » Thu Oct 25, 2001 12:36 am

it would help if you told us what 16 ip is..

deksecurity · Post by **deksecurity** » Thu Oct 25, 2001 12:47 am

the deal is my compny just get T2 and it come with 16 ip but i only need 1 run to router then what can i do with 15 more ip thanks

Phantom-Vortex · Post by **Phantom-Vortex** » Thu Oct 25, 2001 2:13 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

tomsykes · Post by **tomsykes** » Fri Oct 26, 2001 6:49 pm

Umm.

hahaha.

scr1pt k1dd13

Phantom-Vortex · Post by **Phantom-Vortex** » Sat Oct 27, 2001 2:01 am

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Phantom-Vortex · Post by **Phantom-Vortex** » Mon Oct 29, 2001 9:25 pm

Originally posted by tomsykes
Umm.

hahaha.

scr1pt k1dd13

Ummm. hahaha

moron.

PhyberOptix · Post by **PhyberOptix** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 8:44 am

Phantom
You showed a picture and gave a link to a DSLAM. This is used to aggregrate DSL lines. Unless the original poster is wanting to start an ISP I don't think this will do him much good.
When you say "shotgun all 16 into a server", what do you mean? Are you saying he should assign a server 16 ip addresses? What benefits do think he would get by doing this?

Desksecurity
You don't need more than 1 public IP addresse unless you can't setup or don't have the ability to setup NAT *or* you have multiple web servers that need to be visible on the internet. If you can setup NAT on your router then you don't have to do anything w/ the remaining 15 IP addresses. I assume you meant to say you just got a T1 (not a T2) correct?

Phantom-Vortex · Post by **Phantom-Vortex** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 10:44 am

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

cyberskye · Post by **cyberskye** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 10:52 am

Is the bandwidth segmented on a per ip basis - even if only using one of them? Seems like having additional IPs doesn't make the pipe any fatter....expecially if there is a single line in. What do I know?

If you are running public servers it could make configuration a little easier by using more than one ip...

Phantom-Vortex · Post by **Phantom-Vortex** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 12:04 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

deksecurity · Post by **deksecurity** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 1:48 pm

hi all thanks for help me out but i think i will put 1 IP to router
and then web server,email server,ftp. i think for now .. but i have to install winserver pro first and i will test this at home if any one know how to setup web server, emailserver, ftp server. please let me know thank you for all your help....

the ture is my new company is next to fiber net company and they tell me they have 3 mb run to there office and they will run it to my new office and all so give us 16IP to play with ....

Phantom-Vortex · Post by **Phantom-Vortex** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 2:00 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

PhyberOptix · Post by **PhyberOptix** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 2:49 pm

Cyberskye
No, bw isn't segmented on a per IP basis. Having additional IP addresses in no way buys you more bw.

Phantom
I don't know who told you that having additional IP addresses on a server gives you more bw, but they were pulling your leg. If you are interested in really learning TCP/IP, check out "TCP/IP Illustrated Vol.1".
If you are installing multiple NICs then that could contribute to lower latency due to the distributed processing, but I assure you this increase in speed isn't due to having multiple IP addresses.

Phantom-Vortex · Post by **Phantom-Vortex** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 3:16 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Phantom-Vortex · Post by **Phantom-Vortex** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 3:29 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

PhyberOptix · Post by **PhyberOptix** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 4:09 pm

Phantom
I wasn't attempting to be condescending when I suggested "TCP/IP Illustrated Vol. 1". This is pretty much the definitive source on IP and a must read for anyone in the field.
As for your "logic", I hope you can understand why it really itsn't an extra IP address that is resulting in less latency.
What you are seeing is due to traffic being spread across multiple NICs which, once again, results in distributed processing. Here's how you can see my point....
Go buy the cheapest NIC card you can find and install it in your server. Have 8 - 10 people log on and begin playing the game. Note the ping times each person gets over x amt of time. Now go buy an enterpise level NIC and install that in your server. You will quickly see that ping times decreased and yet you are still only using a single IP address.
The point is, an IP address does nothing to increase bw or decrease latency. It is the quality or distributed quantitiy of NICs that you are using.
One more thing....Don't assume you can't learn quite a bit about networking just cause you work for an ISP and have a degree in IT. Working for an ISP doesn't mean you understand networking, just like joining the Navy doesn't mean you are a Navy Seal. And having a degree in IT is great, but it means little in the real world. Companies hire IT based on experience - especially given the fact that most IT college courses are severly outdated. This isn't meant as cutdown, only that the sooner you realize you have a lot to learn, the sooner you will become a better networker. I have 5 yrs experience, MCSE, CNE, NNCSS, CCNA, CCDA, CCNP, and CCIE Written yet I would *never* claim to know all about networking. I spend 2 hrs a night reading technical books for the sole reason that you will *never* know all there is to know about networking.
My 2cents

Phantom-Vortex · Post by **Phantom-Vortex** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 4:23 pm

xxxxxxx

PhyberOptix · Post by **PhyberOptix** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 4:46 pm

Slow down for a second. Take a deep breath. Whew. Feel better? Ok, lets talk for a second.

If you have a degree in MIS or CS, as you claim, then you must have at the very least a basic understanding of IP. If you have this basic understanding then you also understand that what you are concluding is completely wrong. Based on your logic, my logic says that you don't really have a degree in IT and you are merely flashing unfounded credentials on the hope that they will keep people from questioning what you believe to be correct. But this is another post for another time. Regardless of whether you have a degree or not, you are still incorrect.

Before I rebute your theory I need to make sure I understand what you think you understand. Are you saying that bandwidth is allocated based on IP addresses? Do you contend that I could assign a full class C address (that's 254 useable IP's) to a NIC which would then create some sort of TDM (that's Time Division Multiplexing) which would divide the available bw into 254 slots? Is this a reasonable assessment of your thought? If not, please clarify how you think multiple IP addresses results in users "not fighting for bw sharing the same connection".

Once you do this, I will explain to you how bw contention works and why IP addresses have nothing to do with it. If you choose to major in MIS or CS in college you will probably learn more about this.

deksecurity · Post by **deksecurity** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 4:50 pm

cool down guys no need to go that far... we all in the same team.

Phantom-Vortex · Post by **Phantom-Vortex** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 4:54 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Phantom-Vortex · Post by **Phantom-Vortex** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 5:37 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxx

PhyberOptix · Post by **PhyberOptix** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 6:05 pm

I will wait until you have had a chance to completly explain your theory before I post a response.

I don't want to come across as a jerk but you posting in caps and telling me that hopefully I can understand logic isn't exactly friendly conversation.

Phantom-Vortex · Post by **Phantom-Vortex** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 8:51 pm

xxxxxxxxxxx

PhyberOptix · Post by **PhyberOptix** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 9:47 pm

No that's not what I think you are saying. I think you are saying that by assigning multiple IP's to a single NIC you are able to improve throughput and/or lower latency. What I do not understand is why you think that multiple IP's equals improved performance.

Phantom-Vortex · Post by **Phantom-Vortex** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:24 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

PhyberOptix · Post by **PhyberOptix** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:46 pm

I think I get what you are trying to say. You aren't saying that multiple IPs assigned to a single NIC result in lowered latency (I'm assuming you were just confused when you posted this earlier). You are saying that multiple internet connections, whether that be DSL, Cable, T1, T3, etc etc will result in improved bw.

If this is what you are trying to say, then you have the potential to be correct. Assuming that routing is setup correctly, yes, you can load balance over multiple internet connections.

The problem is the original post for this thread has a single connection (T1) with 16 public IP addresses. You suggested that the poster should assign all of these addresses to a single server and this would lower latency / improve throughput. What you are now saying is something totally different.

I think you are confused by the fact that just b/c you have multiple IP addresses doesn't mean you have multiple physical lines coming into your premisce. Are we getting a little closer to being on the same page?

Phantom-Vortex · Post by **Phantom-Vortex** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:58 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

PhyberOptix · Post by **PhyberOptix** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 8:51 am

Ok, now you are saying what I think you've been trying to say all along. The problem is, it's still wrong.

A T1 has *nothing* to do w/ an IP address. When I buy a T1 or Frac T1 from the telco, it doesn't automatically come with IP addresses. I have about 50 T1's in my network and none of them came with IP addresses from the ISP. I think your hang up is that you have associated logical IP addresses w/ physical T1 lines and this isn't correct.

A T1 is made up of 24 64kb channels. I'm not sure where you learned that "most t lines are split by a proxy converting the 27 ip addresses to LAN addresses" but this is no where even close to the way it works. If I order a full T1 (that's 24 64k channels which equals 1.544 Mbps), I have a *single* IP address I will use as my endpoint (or I don't even have to use an IP address if I want to bridge). If I order a fractional T1, say 768k (that's 12 64k channels), I will still have only a *single* IP address assigned to the line - once again this is assuming I want to route and not bridge.

The point is, I can use a T1 w/ or w/ out an IP address - not to mention that I can even load balance over multiple T1's w/out either of them having an IP address. You are also throwing around terms like double and triple NAT but you are using them out of context. If you want to understand what these things mean and how they are used you should consider looking into some Cisco training. If you are interested in it, this type of training will probably help you understand what these topics mean and how they work.

Good luck

Phantom-Vortex · Post by **Phantom-Vortex** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 9:20 am

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

PhyberOptix · Post by **PhyberOptix** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 9:48 am

It sounds like you are starting to get a better grasp of this, but you're still just a bit off.

There aren't different types of T1's. You either have a T1 (which is 24 Channels) or you can have an E1 (this is the European standard which has 32 channels). There is no such thing as a T1 with 27 channels. If that's what your company is calling it, they are wrong. I can call a VCR a DVD player and then say "well, there's different flavors of DVD players" but the truth is that I don't really understand what a DVD player is. The other point is that a T1 works the same from the customers perspective regardless of the physical medium it rides on.

Phantom-Vortex · Post by **Phantom-Vortex** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:03 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxx

SG Broadband Community

16 ip....

16 ip....

16ip

thanks guys