Joining 2 home networks

My neighbour and I want to connect our home networks together. Our current
setup is this:

House 1

Router 192.168.0.1 - connected to Internet
Server 192.168.0.2 (Fixed IP)
Desktop 192.168.0.x (DHCP)
Other machines 192.168.0.x (DHCP)

House 2

Router 192.168.1.1 - connected to Internet
Server 192.168.1.2 (Fixed IP)
Desktop 192.168.1.x (DHCP)
Other machines 192.168.1.x (DHCP)

All machines are running W2K Pro or XP Pro

This is what we want to do:

1) Use each others houses as an offsite backup location using NAS in each
house.
2) Access each others servers (file sharing)
3) Allow each network to access the Internet only through it's own router
4) Only run one CAT5e cable between the houses

I know that just connecting the networks together to form a single network
isn't an option as that will mean both routers will be providing a DHCP
service. If one was disabled, all Internet traffic would go though the other
(DHCP enabled) router. Fails on point 3 above.

I know a bit about networks but I'm sure there must be a better solution to
the one I've come up with, which is this:

Use an old router to create a third network: 172.16.0.x
Add a second NIC to each server and each Desktop
Disable DHCP for this network so the router doesn't give out a Default
Gateway.
Hard code IPs on the new NICs in each machine
Put the router in one house and a switch in the other.
Connect Desktop, Server and new NAS to router in house 1
Connect Desktop, Server and new NAS to switch in house 2
Connect the switch to the router using a cable between the houses.

I think that will work but if there was a way of doing it with less hardware
I'd be happier.

Does anyone have any better suggestions ?

Graeme

In article <m1nMj.42050$(E-Mail Removed)>, Graeme Pinnock
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> My neighbour and I want to connect our home networks together. Our current
> setup is this:
>
> This is what we want to do:
>
> 1) Use each others houses as an offsite backup location using NAS in each
> house.
> 2) Access each others servers (file sharing)
> 3) Allow each network to access the Internet only through it's own router
> 4) Only run one CAT5e cable between the houses
>
Simplest solution: stick an extra NIC in each server and connect them
directly to each other as a separate network, manually configured.

Be aware that there may be electrical problems running Cat5 between two
houses if they're at different earth potential - it would be better to
use a fibre or wireless link.

"Rob Morley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) t...
> In article <m1nMj.42050$(E-Mail Removed)>, Graeme Pinnock
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
> > My neighbour and I want to connect our home networks together. Our
current
> > setup is this:
> >
> > This is what we want to do:
> >
> > 1) Use each others houses as an offsite backup location using NAS in
each
> > house.
> > 2) Access each others servers (file sharing)
> > 3) Allow each network to access the Internet only through it's own
router
> > 4) Only run one CAT5e cable between the houses
> >
> Simplest solution: stick an extra NIC in each server and connect them
> directly to each other as a separate network, manually configured.
>
> Be aware that there may be electrical problems running Cat5 between two
> houses if they're at different earth potential - it would be better to
> use a fibre or wireless link.

Hi Rob,

I didn't think about the posibility of earth problems. Thanks for that. I
think I'd probably go for fibre as we are flooded with wireless here (I've
found some RJ45 to SC-Fibre converters for less than the price of a pair of
Linksys wireless bridges - although air is still cheaper than fibre!)

If we connected the two servers together, how would I get to his server from
my desktop? Will I need to change some network settings? In the setup you
suggest, I would have thought that it will only be the servers that can see
each other? I should point out that they not real servers, one is W2K Pro,
the other is XP Pro. I've played with NIC bridging but it never seems to do
what I want (and isn't an available on W2K, only XPPro)

Cheers

Graeme Pinnock wrote:

> Hi Rob,
>
> I didn't think about the posibility of earth problems. Thanks for that. I
> think I'd probably go for fibre as we are flooded with wireless here (I've
> found some RJ45 to SC-Fibre converters for less than the price of a pair of
> Linksys wireless bridges - although air is still cheaper than fibre!)

Just to cover off one other option you might consider, if the two houses
are fed from different mains phases there may be an earth problem. It
would also make it impossible to use mains networking. There have been
mixed reports of running mains networks between adjacent houses.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

>
> If we connected the two servers together, how would I get to his server from
> my desktop? Will I need to change some network settings?

You would add an additional network card to each server, probably using
a different subnet from those that either of you use for your internal
networks. VPNs make things complicated if both of the connected networks
have the same subnet. Just which 192.168.0.1 does the network use as its
gateway?

If you are considering using a VPN then it's a good idea to set your
network up using a randomly chosen 10.x.y subnet. That makes it unlikely
that your network will have the same configuration as the one you
connect to. But in this case do you really need a VPN? If you only want
to use the other network for backups then you don't need that
complexity. All you need is accessible shares on each others' servers. I
would consider adding an extra disk to each server and dedicating those
to backups. That way there won't be a conflict over disk space usage.

In the setup you
> suggest, I would have thought that it will only be the servers that can see
> each other? I should point out that they not real servers, one is W2K Pro,
> the other is XP Pro. I've played with NIC bridging but it never seems to do
> what I want (and isn't an available on W2K, only XPPro)

How you set up network routing between the two systems will depend on
their existing network configuration. Any of the NT series systems (I
think including Vista) can handle routing between two or more network
interfaces if they are configured properly.


--
(E-Mail Removed)

"Bernard Peek" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
,
> >
> > I didn't think about the posibility of earth problems. Thanks for that.
I
> > think I'd probably go for fibre as we are flooded with wireless here
(I've
> > found some RJ45 to SC-Fibre converters for less than the price of a pair
of
> > Linksys wireless bridges - although air is still cheaper than fibre!)
>
> Just to cover off one other option you might consider, if the two houses
> are fed from different mains phases there may be an earth problem. It
> would also make it impossible to use mains networking. There have been
> mixed reports of running mains networks between adjacent houses.
> Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I'd thought about an over-the-mains network but I run an X10 home automation
network already and have heard stories about them being incompatible. I'm
not really worried about the house to house physical network as I'm sure I
can find something that works. It's the network setup that I'm having
trouble coming to grips with.

> >
> > If we connected the two servers together, how would I get to his server
from
> > my desktop? Will I need to change some network settings?
>
> You would add an additional network card to each server, probably using
> a different subnet from those that either of you use for your internal
> networks. VPNs make things complicated if both of the connected networks
> have the same subnet. Just which 192.168.0.1 does the network use as its
> gateway?

Both house networks are already on different networks. 192.168.0.x and
192.168.1.x
Each network should only use it's own gateway.

> If you are considering using a VPN then it's a good idea to set your
> network up using a randomly chosen 10.x.y subnet. That makes it unlikely
> that your network will have the same configuration as the one you
> connect to. But in this case do you really need a VPN? If you only want
> to use the other network for backups then you don't need that
> complexity. All you need is accessible shares on each others' servers. I
> would consider adding an extra disk to each server and dedicating those
> to backups. That way there won't be a conflict over disk space usage.

I'm not considering VPN (see original post). Not sure how a VPN would help.

> In the setup you
> > suggest, I would have thought that it will only be the servers that can
see
> > each other? I should point out that they not real servers, one is W2K
Pro,
> > the other is XP Pro. I've played with NIC bridging but it never seems
to do
> > what I want (and isn't an available on W2K, only XPPro)
>
> How you set up network routing between the two systems will depend on
> their existing network configuration. Any of the NT series systems (I
> think including Vista) can handle routing between two or more network
> interfaces if they are configured properly.
> > (E-Mail Removed)

I'm sure you are right, but the question is how do I set up the routing ?
My first post detailed the current setup.
My orignal network design used a lot of hardware because I don't really
understand routing. I read as much as I can understand about networking but
realise I'm still lacking the knowledge to achieve my goal. Any suggestions
about how to set this up would be much appreciated.

Graeme Pinnock wrote:


> I'd thought about an over-the-mains network but I run an X10 home
> automation network already and have heard stories about them being
> incompatible. I'm not really worried about the house to house physical
> network as I'm sure I can find something that works. It's the network
> setup that I'm having trouble coming to grips with.

IME, ethernet over mains won't pass through an electricity meter.

Chris

--
Remove prejudice to reply.

"Graeme Pinnock" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:m1nMj.42050$(E-Mail Removed)...
> My neighbour and I want to connect our home networks together. Our current
> setup is this:
>
> House 1
>
> Router 192.168.0.1 - connected to Internet
> Server 192.168.0.2 (Fixed IP)
> Desktop 192.168.0.x (DHCP)
> Other machines 192.168.0.x (DHCP)
>
> House 2
>
> Router 192.168.1.1 - connected to Internet
> Server 192.168.1.2 (Fixed IP)
> Desktop 192.168.1.x (DHCP)
> Other machines 192.168.1.x (DHCP)
>
> All machines are running W2K Pro or XP Pro
>
> This is what we want to do:
>
> 1) Use each others houses as an offsite backup location using NAS in each
> house.
> 2) Access each others servers (file sharing)
> 3) Allow each network to access the Internet only through it's own router
> 4) Only run one CAT5e cable between the houses
>
> I know that just connecting the networks together to form a single network
> isn't an option as that will mean both routers will be providing a DHCP
> service. If one was disabled, all Internet traffic would go though the
> other
> (DHCP enabled) router. Fails on point 3 above.

Yes it is an option.

Set the DHCP servers on both routers to allocated different address ranges
in the same subnet
192.168.1.10-100 on one and 192.168.1.101-200 for example , then connect a
switch port on each router to the other.
To ensure that PCs use the correct router as their default gateway you can
either set DHCP reservations on the routers , or just manually set the
default gateway on each pc.
Or indeed scrap DHCP and use static addresses.

--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

"Dr Zoidberg" <alexNOOOO!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fttfhj$lg6$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Graeme Pinnock" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:m1nMj.42050$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > My neighbour and I want to connect our home networks together. Our
current
> > setup is this:
> >
> > House 1
> >
> > Router 192.168.0.1 - connected to Internet
> > Server 192.168.0.2 (Fixed IP)
> > Desktop 192.168.0.x (DHCP)
> > Other machines 192.168.0.x (DHCP)
> >
> > House 2
> >
> > Router 192.168.1.1 - connected to Internet
> > Server 192.168.1.2 (Fixed IP)
> > Desktop 192.168.1.x (DHCP)
> > Other machines 192.168.1.x (DHCP)
> >
> > All machines are running W2K Pro or XP Pro
> >
> > This is what we want to do:
> >
> > 1) Use each others houses as an offsite backup location using NAS in
each
> > house.
> > 2) Access each others servers (file sharing)
> > 3) Allow each network to access the Internet only through it's own
router
> > 4) Only run one CAT5e cable between the houses
> >
> > I know that just connecting the networks together to form a single
network
> > isn't an option as that will mean both routers will be providing a DHCP
> > service. If one was disabled, all Internet traffic would go though the
> > other
> > (DHCP enabled) router. Fails on point 3 above.
>
> Yes it is an option.
>
> Set the DHCP servers on both routers to allocated different address ranges
> in the same subnet
> 192.168.1.10-100 on one and 192.168.1.101-200 for example , then connect a
> switch port on each router to the other.
> To ensure that PCs use the correct router as their default gateway you can
> either set DHCP reservations on the routers , or just manually set the
> default gateway on each pc.
> Or indeed scrap DHCP and use static addresses.
>
> --
> Alex
>
> "I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"
>

Wouldn't I have to turn off DHCP if both routers are using the same network
and subnet? Otherwise wouldn't they both respond to DHCP requests from any
device? I think I'd have to turn DHCP off on both routers to avoid the wrong
one supplying it's own gateway. Sadly, some devices on the network need DHCP
and it's not possible to get at the network settings. We also have several
laptops that are used in other locations and although setting up "alternate
network settings" is a option, it would be a real pain.

If I had some way of preventing DHCP requests passing between the routers.
I'd could, like you say, set DHCP on each router to only supply a subset of
IP addresess to avoid clashes.

Graeme

"Graeme Pinnock" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:SUrMj.42785$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Dr Zoidberg" <alexNOOOO!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fttfhj$lg6$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "Graeme Pinnock" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:m1nMj.42050$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > My neighbour and I want to connect our home networks together. Our
> current
>> > setup is this:
>> >
>> > House 1
>> >
>> > Router 192.168.0.1 - connected to Internet
>> > Server 192.168.0.2 (Fixed IP)
>> > Desktop 192.168.0.x (DHCP)
>> > Other machines 192.168.0.x (DHCP)
>> >
>> > House 2
>> >
>> > Router 192.168.1.1 - connected to Internet
>> > Server 192.168.1.2 (Fixed IP)
>> > Desktop 192.168.1.x (DHCP)
>> > Other machines 192.168.1.x (DHCP)
>> >
>> > All machines are running W2K Pro or XP Pro
>> >
>> > This is what we want to do:
>> >
>> > 1) Use each others houses as an offsite backup location using NAS in
> each
>> > house.
>> > 2) Access each others servers (file sharing)
>> > 3) Allow each network to access the Internet only through it's own
> router
>> > 4) Only run one CAT5e cable between the houses
>> >
>> > I know that just connecting the networks together to form a single
> network
>> > isn't an option as that will mean both routers will be providing a DHCP
>> > service. If one was disabled, all Internet traffic would go though the
>> > other
>> > (DHCP enabled) router. Fails on point 3 above.
>>
>> Yes it is an option.
>>
>> Set the DHCP servers on both routers to allocated different address
>> ranges
>> in the same subnet
>> 192.168.1.10-100 on one and 192.168.1.101-200 for example , then connect
>> a
>> switch port on each router to the other.
>> To ensure that PCs use the correct router as their default gateway you
>> can
>> either set DHCP reservations on the routers , or just manually set the
>> default gateway on each pc.
>> Or indeed scrap DHCP and use static addresses.
>>
>
> Wouldn't I have to turn off DHCP if both routers are using the same
> network
> and subnet? Otherwise wouldn't they both respond to DHCP requests from any
> device?

Nope , like I say , you can (on most DHCP servers) set reservations so that
the network card with a particular MAC address always gets allocated the
same IP address.
Thinking about it in a bit more detail you'll need to have a small pool of
addresses on each router - one per pc/device , each with an address reserved
on the correct DHCP server and lease times set to as long as possible or
infinite if that's allowed on your router.
Each available address is then basically allocated for a device in that
building so there aren't any free addresses left to issue to next door's
PCs.
After the address has been acquired by a PC first time round then most
devices will simply try and renew it with the DHCP server half way through
the lease period , so after a first boot which can be done with the link
cable disconnected you'll be fine.

I've not tried this in practice but it should work just fine.


--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

"Dr Zoidberg" <alexNOOOO!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fttjko$bg0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Graeme Pinnock" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:SUrMj.42785$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > "Dr Zoidberg" <alexNOOOO!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:fttfhj$lg6$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> "Graeme Pinnock" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news:m1nMj.42050$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> > My neighbour and I want to connect our home networks together. Our
> > current
> >> > setup is this:
> >> >
> >> > House 1
> >> >
> >> > Router 192.168.0.1 - connected to Internet
> >> > Server 192.168.0.2 (Fixed IP)
> >> > Desktop 192.168.0.x (DHCP)
> >> > Other machines 192.168.0.x (DHCP)
> >> >
> >> > House 2
> >> >
> >> > Router 192.168.1.1 - connected to Internet
> >> > Server 192.168.1.2 (Fixed IP)
> >> > Desktop 192.168.1.x (DHCP)
> >> > Other machines 192.168.1.x (DHCP)
> >> >
> >> > All machines are running W2K Pro or XP Pro
> >> >
> >> > This is what we want to do:
> >> >
> >> > 1) Use each others houses as an offsite backup location using NAS in
> > each
> >> > house.
> >> > 2) Access each others servers (file sharing)
> >> > 3) Allow each network to access the Internet only through it's own
> > router
> >> > 4) Only run one CAT5e cable between the houses
> >> >
> >> > I know that just connecting the networks together to form a single
> > network
> >> > isn't an option as that will mean both routers will be providing a
DHCP
> >> > service. If one was disabled, all Internet traffic would go though
the
> >> > other
> >> > (DHCP enabled) router. Fails on point 3 above.
> >>
> >> Yes it is an option.
> >>
> >> Set the DHCP servers on both routers to allocated different address
> >> ranges
> >> in the same subnet
> >> 192.168.1.10-100 on one and 192.168.1.101-200 for example , then
connect
> >> a
> >> switch port on each router to the other.
> >> To ensure that PCs use the correct router as their default gateway you
> >> can
> >> either set DHCP reservations on the routers , or just manually set the
> >> default gateway on each pc.
> >> Or indeed scrap DHCP and use static addresses.
> >>
> >
> > Wouldn't I have to turn off DHCP if both routers are using the same
> > network
> > and subnet? Otherwise wouldn't they both respond to DHCP requests from
any
> > device?
>
> Nope , like I say , you can (on most DHCP servers) set reservations so
that
> the network card with a particular MAC address always gets allocated the
> same IP address.
> Thinking about it in a bit more detail you'll need to have a small pool of
> addresses on each router - one per pc/device , each with an address
reserved
> on the correct DHCP server and lease times set to as long as possible or
> infinite if that's allowed on your router.
> Each available address is then basically allocated for a device in that
> building so there aren't any free addresses left to issue to next door's
> PCs.
> After the address has been acquired by a PC first time round then most
> devices will simply try and renew it with the DHCP server half way through
> the lease period , so after a first boot which can be done with the link
> cable disconnected you'll be fine.
>
> I've not tried this in practice but it should work just fine.
>
>
> --
> Alex
>
> "I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"
>
Thanks Alex, it's an interesting solution but don't you think the admin
overheads outweigh the benefits?
Every new device would need to be configured in the relevant router (Both
routers do support this) but we would need a link outtage every time (which
would have to be agreed with the neighbour) and be at a time when there is
no backup (or restore) taking place. If a friend popped round and wanted to
plug-in (or use the WAP) I would have to go though this everytime. I can see
it would probably work but I'm thinking I'd like something a bit more user
friendly. Although I could maybe live with your idea, my neighbour will
think it's an unreasonable compromise. Thinking more about this, I also
rely on DHCP a lot as I use Microsofts Virtual PC 2007. It generates random
MAC addreses for each machines virtual network card. This fact alone is kind
of pointing me off!

Graeme