Network Gear

jjames

So what's your network gear of choice? (i.e. switches, routers, access points, etc.)

We had been using standard Linksys stuff, and have recently decided to fiddle with Cisco gear. Boy do I miss the Linksys interface.

ericmedley

jjames wrote: »

So what's your network gear of choice? (i.e. switches, routers, access points, etc.)

We had been using standard Linksys stuff, and have recently decided to fiddle with Cisco gear. Boy do I miss the Linksys interface.

We use Linksys on the low end and Cisco on the high end. For most our larger systems we pretty much insist the client go with an enterprise level network.

In the grand scheme of the project, it's not that much money comparitively.

mcotton

We've been using the linksys business series equipment (RVxxx). I want to experiment with some Cisco equipment, would you mind sharing more of your experiences with it?

Thanks

jjames

mcotton wrote: »

We've been using the linksys business series equipment (RVxxx). I want to experiment with some Cisco equipment, would you mind sharing more of your experiences with it?

Thanks

Sure . . . let me find some words to describe it: $!@#$!, and ##$$!$#!, and #$!#$!# a royal #$!#$!#$ in the #$#!$!!!!!!!

Definitely not friendly if you have no experience whatsoever setting up a Cisco router. They're not plug and play like many of the standard routers out there (i.e. your RV082 or RV016s.) Trust me, having some of the Cisco features is nice, i.e. NAT (setting it up so outside port 5901 goes to 192.168.1.51:5900 and outside port 5902 goes to 192.168.1.52:5900) and static DHCP (though haven't played with that), but to be honest . . . it provides nothing that we couldn't do with an RV016. I've talked to several people who deal with Cisco equipment on a daily basis and they say that unless you're going to deal with it on a daily basis, don't sign up for the training - it'd be a waste because there's SO MUCH to know / learn.

I'm going to suggest to my boss that we switch back over to the Linksys RVxxx series stuff, though those were the exact pieces we were having problems with that made want to go with Cisco. Even their access point stuff is a bit screwy for every day usage. Want to do WPA with a Cisco AP? You'll need to either have a RADIUS server at hand or configure your AP to handle the local authentication which involves a 19 step process; which all of course all documentation is for the command line interface, even though there is a section in the GUI to set it up . . . it's a royal pain. A standard $80 Linksys WAP54G can do WPA in a heart beat, but a $600 Cisco 1100 Series AP takes 19 steps (at least.)

So . . . perhaps this is more detail but this explains why I'm looking for suggestions and seeing what you guys use for your networking gear.

RicardoSiqueira

I have recently deployed 3 Cisco 871W routers, and they work very well with Netlinx. These are considered entry level Cisco Routers and you can use SDM (Cisco Graphical User Interface) to manage these routers using Windows XP or Vista. It retails for around $600. It has built-in very reliable VPN, wireless G, Qos and the ability to create Virtual Lans. It has a steeper learning curve than the Linksys / Netgear GUI, but it is a way better router. I didn't have any prior Cisco experience and bought a couple Cisco IOS books and got it going after spending a few days on it. For now on, the Cisco 871W is my first choice for Netlinx install.

Brad.Odegard

We use linksys for the simple jobs, and for our high-end and Multi-wan, we've been using the Watchguard Firebox X550e Core unit. The configuration takes a little getting used to, but once you've done one or two, its pretty easy to do the others.

Licensing is on-going for the firewall, but it's well worth it. Since installing these in place of an RV*** series business class linksys, we've had not a lick of trouble. Previously we were having issues almost weekly with the units. The RV*** series units seem to be rock solid in a single service provider environment,but when you place them into a multi-service provider configuration, they do seem to have issues.

Brad

Jimweir192

We've used both Cisco & Netgear ProSafe kit. The Cisco kit is usually on larger corporate jobs, but there is nothing I've ever needed or wanted to do that I couldn't manage with the ProSafe h/w - it's easy to setup even with complex VLAN's, VPN and NAT and for us has proved very reliable.

jjames

Thanks for all the responses! The other reason I asked is because nine-time-out-of-ten I set up the network. Otherwise our installers, who aren't the best with computers but can fiddle around with it enough to eventually get it working . . . so I'm trying to get some ideas on semi-powerful stuff but simple too. The Netgear sounds tempting once you said NAT & VPN were easy to set up. I'll definitely be looking into that.

jweather

There's a reason Cisco requires 2 years of classes to be "Cisco certified". If you need to do something that SDM doesn't cover, your best bet is to google it and hope somebody has a sample config file to do it. There's no hope of finding it in the documentation, and there isn't any online help worth using. Stay far away from Cisco unless you have somebody on staff who knows what they're doing (ie, they've spent their entire career wrangling Cisco). I like business-class Netgear and Linksys products personally, their consumer stuff can be kind of flaky, usually due to overheating.

jazzwyld

A different Manufacture

We had worked with Linksys and Netgear on their low end product and really was having problems. Actually this morning we are going out to a job to fix some stuff on these routers. Yes, they are simple, but they've had DHCP assigning issues and in this particular job have had to be reset.

So we changed manufactures. We use Secure Computing for our routers, Pakedge for our WAPs and switchers. In our newer jobs once they are deployed they just work. We ended up swapping out our office with these devices. Another good thing is they are rather easy to implement, and rather profitable without 2 years of certification (although it is justified).

Jimweir192

jazzwyld wrote: »

DHCP assigning issues and in this particular job have had to be reset.

I don't know about anyone else, but I always put the control system onto a static address range, and with the ProSafe, I can easily assign those static addresses to the relevent MAC addresses within the DHCP tables once they are online - personnally I think this its a safer approach. I can leave DHCP available with a small free pool of addresses for any visiting laptops etc that may need access.

dchristo

We use HP ProCurve.

vining

We've been using the Linksys RV series routers and lately have been setting up devices DHCP and then putting them in the routers static table. When a device comes online and request an IP the router will then assign it and pre assigned IP address based on the mac address of that device and the IP assigned in the router's static table. This method has all the advantages of of setting the device static internally but has the flexability of being able to make changes in the router with the need to make changes in each device. Once you make a change in the router all you need to do in reboot devices for those changes to take effect.

Of course you need keep a copy of the router configuration just in case it craps out.

dthorson

We use http://www.alliedtelesyn.com/

The Waps work well and have dual A/G. You can also easily setup clusters of Waps. The switches are nice with rack mounted ears and integrated power.

DHawthorne

I try to aviod Linksys when I can, particularly the switches; I've had an ongoing issue with them dropping AMX gear from the network, requiring the switch to be reset.

My preference has always been Netgear, though there are some older models that don't play nice at 100k speeds with AMX, I don't think any of the current models have that issue.

jjames

Jimweir192 wrote: »

We've used both Cisco & Netgear ProSafe kit. The Cisco kit is usually on larger corporate jobs, but there is nothing I've ever needed or wanted to do that I couldn't manage with the ProSafe h/w - it's easy to setup even with complex VLAN's, VPN and NAT and for us has proved very reliable.

Okay . . . just wanna make sure, when you say NAT, you do mean something comes in on port 5901 and you can route it to a specific IP on port 5900 . . . right?

Jimweir192

What your describing is NAT Overloading in Cisco terms and is not possible using Netgear products

jjames

Jimweir192 wrote: »

What your describing is NAT Overloading in Cisco terms and is not possible using Netgear products

That's so sad. I really like that. Hmmmph.

Jimweir192

I've never had the need for that kind of port translation - however if you do have a strong application need then I would suggest contacting Netgear - everytime I've had reason to speak with them, I've got through to an inteligent individual who knows the product and they have been known to add features when requested with a good business case...

jjames

Thanks for the info. I saw on another forum that the FVS338 does have port translation. Is that the model you were using? I may be leaning towards that piece.

Jimweir192

I've just been working with an FVS338 and on the current firmware you can perform this form of port translation - so you can setup external port 8085 to internal port 80 for example.

Is that what you wanted?

jjames

I should have updated, I got an FVS338 a while back (probably days after posting) and saw that you could do it.

Thanks for posting the information, I should have done that when I found out.

the8thst

This is a good thread but there is still a lot of vague recommendations, so I will ask for recommendations for a generic scenario that I see quite a bit on my jobs.

I am looking for the a robust router, switch, and AP solution that will hopefully keep me south of the Cisco price point and learning curve. I have experimented with a few entry level and lower SMB class routers without being completely satisfied with any of them.

Typical goal for a Netlinx controlled residence:
A Single Cable Internet (or DSL) Service
VNC that can access all VLans
Minimum 2 VLAN setup
Port Translation would be nice, but is not necessary
VLan1 - Automation Equipment (AMX, Security, AV, APs for TPs)
VLan2 - Home Owners Computers and APs for Laptops
VLan3 - (optional) Kids Computers/Guest Computers access internet only

The basic system would be able to use a managed switch and only use the VLans to optimize network overhead, but for larger homes I would like to be able to setup security to keep kids computers from accessing VLAN1 and Home Owners computers to require a separate password to access the Request or Virtual Keypads.

The solutions I am starting to research right now are Netgear, 3com, and Secure Computing. Any thoughts, or am I asking for too much free info?

vining

the8thst wrote:

The solutions I am starting to research right now are Netgear, 3com, and Secure Computing. Any thoughts, or am I asking for too much free info?

I've been using the Linksys RV series, usually the RV082 which has 8 VLAN's, 2 WANs or 1 WAN & 1 DMZ. I'm sure it does NAT but don't know for sure. You can subnet, but VLAN is much easier, set up each port for protocols or active time period and it also comes with a Quick VPN client disc and can also set up Gateway to Gateway tunnels. I've also been using their managed switches with a gigabit back bone, 24 10/100 port, 4 gigabit ports for switch linking and fiber adapters slots.

So far the managed switches are way over my head but I'm hoping that as I use them I'll get to know them a little better. There are also some issue with managed switches and MAX and possibly something else I read recently where the spanning tree's (if enabled) ports should be set to "port fast" or soemthing to that affect.

shanem

Sonicwall

Has anyone here ever come across the Sonicwall range of products (TZ180 router or the Sonicpoint WAP)?I have been recommended it by a network professional here in Ireland but cannot be certain how well it works with AMX gear.

Spire_Jeff

I use the Sonicwall routers all of the time. They work great and have the added benefit of gateway antivirus and antispam. I have used the wireless offerings from Sonicwall in the past, so I know they do work with AMX gear, but recently we have been using the Netgear managed wireless products for wireless deployment. I know that they do a lot of cool things with their wireless offerings tho (like the ability to setup guest access and keep guests from accessing the local area network... you can even create a little web page login just like public hotspots do.) They even offer a router that can use a 3g wireless broadband card for main or backup internet access.

Jeff

shanem

Thanks for the info Jeff. Sounds like a decent product all round. I needed to confirm it was reliable with the wireless panels as we are having a few difficulties with those dropping offline recently.

Shane

John Gonzales

I recently used a Sonicwall TZ180 and I found it to be quite complicated in terms of features and setup. Granted, I'm no networking genius, I'm no networking dummy either and I found it to be challenging compared to the Netgear, Zyxel, D-Link, and Linksys products that we've used over the years.

I would suggest reading the documentation to get an idea about how to set it up, the administrator's manual is 843 pages long. http://www.sonicwall.com/us/support/5939.html

As a disclaimer, I was also thrown into a last second, no notice job in Hawaii and was under extreme duress to get everything working properly when I was trying to set up the TZ180, so that may have been part of it. I was traumatized enough that I haven't wanted to look at the manual again, but I'll have to since we're going back pretty soon.

From what I haven't blocked out of my mind about the whole experience, I believe the TZ180 was pretty robust though and has so far proven to be extremely reliable.

--John