[VerB]

oh man! Thats just slick! Now this will require an ip change for all the machines and follow one IP scheme? becasue if the still are on different ip ranges, windows networking will not be possible. So, router1 will be 192.168.5.1, router2 192.168.5.2 and so on. and each machine will have to be setup that way? Or is this not needed? With your recommendation, is a windows domain/Samba possible?

[Advertisements]

windows networking is indeed possible with different ip ranges...you won't have to change your current ip ranges at all....though...as an adendum.....if your internal ipranges are completely fictional...then...you could indeed change all the ip's to the same range and not need a router....but..i would think that that would affect your internet connectivity...though...hmm...though if you manually assign default gateways and static ip addresses on each machine....then maybe..just maybe...hmm..

question...when the setup was done originally....did you just pick random subnets...or are those coming straight from the routers?

[dsenette]

windows networking is indeed possible with different ip ranges...you won't have to change your current ip ranges at all....though...as an adendum.....if your internal ipranges are completely fictional...then...you could indeed change all the ip's to the same range and not need a router....but..i would think that that would affect your internet connectivity...though...hmm...though if you manually assign default gateways and static ip addresses on each machine....then maybe..just maybe...hmm..

question...when the setup was done originally....did you just pick random subnets...or are those coming straight from the routers?

[VerB]

"question...when the setup was done originally....did you just pick random subnets...or are those coming straight from the routers?"

I don't quite follow. But if you mean that if I randomly picked the machines that will be grouped, then no. Its one dept. But if you meant that if I actually applied subnetting... nope, no subnetting here. Its just plain vanilla (255.255.255.0) If you meant another... well, i do not follow.

[dsenette]

My current configuraation is:
192.168.1.0
192.168.2.0
192.168.3.0
192.168.4.0

did you pick those numbers...or did the router's pick those numbers...

[VerB]

oh those? yes I set that up myself. the routers for each are 192.168.1.1, 192.168.2.1 and so on...

[dsenette]

and you picked those numbers and set them in the routers correct?

[VerB]

yes. I picked those numbers and set to each router

[dsenette]

woohooo...then throw all that gobbeldy gook at the top of this out the freakin window..change each router's internal ip address to
192.168.1.1 192.168.1.2 192.168.1.3 192.168.1.4

then just change each computer's ip to match the subnet (ie all computers ip's start with 192.168.1.)....and to ensure that they continue to use the same router for internet access set their default gateway to the same router that they were originally using ( if they were using 192.168.1.1 as a router keep it that way if they were using 192.168.2.1 then change it to 1.2 and so on)...IF it weren't for your complex internet requirements..you would be able to use DHCP..but that won't be possible with the multiple internet connctions....now all your computers will be on the same subnet...and you would be able to implement a workgroup...or a domain architecture if you wish....

[VerB]

Really? no internet conflicts? My Network admin say that there might be conflicts between routers... This came about because that was my initial idea... to treat each router as one machine that shares the internet connection. Its really as simple as that? Gosh, thanks so much. I do not have to use the linux router then?

[dsenette]

IF you were using DHCP yes..there would be conflicts..as no machine would know who to talk to...BUT..if you statically assign an ip address..and default gateway to each machine..then you'll have no conflicts as long as no two machines have the same ip address

[VerB]

Alright, cool. Thanks for the help. I really appreciate the quick replies. Thanks, I will implement as you recommended and let you know how it went.

[dsenette]

deffinitely keep me updated...you've got my interest peaked (sorry i wasted all that time with all that useless stuff...but it was fun theorizing)

[VerB]

Sure it was fun. The linux router recommendation really is interesting.