Slightly OT (not wireless) - Why was this network set up with a switch and not a router?

I am helping a friend with her company network after they fired their
regular computer guy. It's a pretty simple network: 15 or so Win 2000
clients and a file server. They use it for basically 1 application, an
office client and billing program.

My question is: Whomever set it up originally opted to go with a 16 port
DLink switch rather than a DHCP router. It is functioning fine right now,
with all the clients having IP addresses in the 169.254 range. (I didn't
check to see whether the addresses were static in each machine, but I am
assuming that they are.) Why might the person who originally set it up have
gone with a switch in this situation, as opposed to using a DHCP router?
This seems like it would be more complicated than necessary, forcing the
administrator to keep track of which machine had which IP, etc. Is there a
reason that a switch is better in this application? Should I recommend an
upgrade(?) to a router?

Thanks,

Ryan

The Chairman wrote:

>
> My question is: Whomever set it up originally opted to go with a 16 port
> DLink switch rather than a DHCP router. It is functioning fine right now,
> with all the clients having IP addresses in the 169.254 range. (I didn't
> check to see whether the addresses were static in each machine, but I am
> assuming that they are.) Why might the person who originally set it up have
> gone with a switch in this situation, as opposed to using a DHCP router?

From the design of the network we can only guess why the computer guy
was fired. Doesn't do networks?

Having 'all in one' equipment is looking for trouble. Something breaks,
you go down. At least with multiple boxes, only part of your network
goes down.

Go find a linux guy and have them build you a DHCP server. Better yet,
make it a full blown router/firewall with DHCP installed, along with
IPTables. Properly setup you can't be broken into from the outside.
Depending on your Internet connectivity, a pent 200 with 128Meg will run
circles around any of the 'off the shelve' router/firewall combo's AND
will wait patiently for data from your ISP.

Easy to expand. Years ago, one of my customers needed help. I setup a
4 user network. Since then I have added stuff: I am currently
maintaining a 55 computer network, DSL ( 768/768 ) along with a Windoz
server box ( couldn't talk'm out of that ). The Windoz box is a file
server on an old Proliant 5000 and fills the local network 100Mbs pipe.
I split the local network into to ( 192.168.100.0 and 192.168.200.0 of
which the linux router/firewall handles fine. Has 4 16 port switches (
2 on each network ) to help in the transfer rates of the client/server
sharing. The DSL circuit hits 75% utilization multiple times a day, but
I can't get'm to go faster as they don't want to spend more money and
can live with the current limitations. Time will change that.

Oh, as a side note, that linux box should be fairly inexpensive. Find
one of your 'old' computers ( pent -> 66Mhz bus class at least ) and use
it. I don't know were you are, but getting a linux guy into the action
shouldn't be to bad. Heck, you probably know somebody ( or do it
yourself ) that can help you out for a few hours of consultation. If
you wish to go this way and can't find anybody, give me a yell as I will
build ya one and ship it to ya.

> This seems like it would be more complicated than necessary, forcing the
> administrator to keep track of which machine had which IP, etc. Is there a
> reason that a switch is better in this application? Should I recommend an
> upgrade(?) to a router?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ryan

The short answer to your question is, for a small network like that, a
switch is absolutely the right device.
What is missing from the picture is a DHCP server so you can centralize IP
address management. If they have an existing Windoze server box, you can
add DHCP to that with several commercially-available DHCP server products.
Otherwise, as another person pointed out, you can easily build a DHCP server
from a Linux machine. If this network requires Internet access, then the
Linux machine can also be your network's router and firewall.

good luck,
Jonathan

"The Chairman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns95C2730E7370monsterearthlinknet@140.99.99. 130...
> I am helping a friend with her company network after they fired their
> regular computer guy. It's a pretty simple network: 15 or so Win 2000
> clients and a file server. They use it for basically 1 application, an
> office client and billing program.
>
> My question is: Whomever set it up originally opted to go with a 16 port
> DLink switch rather than a DHCP router. It is functioning fine right now,
> with all the clients having IP addresses in the 169.254 range. (I didn't
> check to see whether the addresses were static in each machine, but I am
> assuming that they are.) Why might the person who originally set it up
have
> gone with a switch in this situation, as opposed to using a DHCP router?
> This seems like it would be more complicated than necessary, forcing the
> administrator to keep track of which machine had which IP, etc. Is there a
> reason that a switch is better in this application? Should I recommend an
> upgrade(?) to a router?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ryan