PCs with Wi-Fi internet access and LAN for storage/Printer network

[barnettgs]

Hello,

I'm doing this for a friend, and we were having difficulty making PCs see each other on the LAN network, especially with the NAS station. I did not have enough time to diagnose the problem the last time I was there.

I have a quick drawing as follows:

So these PCs got internet access via the WiFi connection from the BT Hub.

For the LAN, I think there is no DHCP as they are all connected to a LAN switch, so they would be given a static IP; however, Synology NAS Station can have its DHCP turned on if needed but since one of the printers use static IP, so what would be best IP range for that? As there is no host on that LAN so do I need to I assign a gateway IP?

I assume that IP ranges cannot be the same as the WiFi network, so therefore they would have to be something like 192.168.2.xxx?

 

[Orcvader]

This seems a bit messy, there's basically two networks, one with an actual DHCP server to hand out IPs (the PCs connected via WiFi) and the other that's connected to the switch. Do the PCs have static IPs on the ethernet connection as well?

Since 192.168.1.x is being used by the BT hub, I suggest using 192.168.2.x assuming the Synology can function as a DHCP server. However, I suggest just simplifying the network by connecting the switch directly to the BT hub via ethernet if possible, then everything will be on the same subnet, and should allow everything to see each other.

 

[barnettgs]

Yes, these PCs have static IPs, as well as the printers and NAS. I agree it is messy.

The reason for this is that the BT Hub is on the far end of the large building because of where the fibre plate is installed, with the BT Extender in the middle of the building to serve the internet to the PCs on the other end!

You do have a point about simplifying the network; I think it can only be done by adding another BT extender with a LAN port on the end of the building where the PCs and printers are, connecting it to the switch to give out the IPs from the BT Hub. But does that mean if one PC sends a file to the NAS via the switch, it would have to go through the BT Hub via two Wi-Fi extenders and then come back to the switch network? That would have slowed down the large file transfers to crawling speed.

That was why the PCs are served by internet access perfectly via the WiFi separately; we just need to deal with the LAN network for use with the file transfers and printing.

 

[Orcvader]

You do have a point about simplifying the network; I think it can only be done by adding another BT extender with a LAN port on the end of the building where the PCs and printers are, connecting it to the switch to give out the IPs from the BT Hub. But does that mean if one PC sends a file to the NAS via the switch, it would have to go through the BT Hub via two Wi-Fi extenders and then come back to the switch network? That would have slowed down the large file transfers to crawling speed.

From experience no, it'll take the shortest route and will only go through the switch.

Considering it's fibre though, I would still be tempted to get a long ethernet run installed, I would imagine WiFi going through an extender will hold internet speeds back, not to mention added latency.

 

[barnettgs]

From experience no, it'll take the shortest route and will only go through the switch.

Considering it's fibre though, I would still be tempted to get a long ethernet run installed, I would imagine WiFi going through an extender will hold internet speeds back, not to mention added latency.

Thanks, I'm just curious to know why it is a bad idea to run two different networks through the same PCs. Both networks (LAN and Wi-Fi) have no needs for each other.

 

[barnettgs]

I would still be tempted to get a long ethernet run installed, I would imagine WiFi going through an extender will hold internet speeds back, not to mention added latency.

On second thought, would a powerline do instead of a long ethernet run?

 

[d_brennen]

On second thought, would a powerline do instead of a long ethernet run?

They're alright, I use one for my "study" PC. Wouldn't recommend as a network backhaul for multiple devices though. TBF mine are quite old, never get anywhere near 100mbps over them. Occasionally have to reboot one end as it seems to randomly lose sync. Run an ethernet cable between the router and switch, then no need for WiFi on the PCs. Let the switch do DHCP (with statics if you need). Just IMO

 

[barnettgs]

Thanks. Due to the length of the building, which would require a really long ethernet cable and the time to route it, etc., I guess I will try a separate subnet route first and see how it goes since both networks do not need to see each other.

 

[alex24]

If this is for a business, running a cable (actually if you do it, run two) should be justified and a worthwhile exercise, as it could also allow you improve the WiFi coverage and overall performance and cater for future growth.

However, what you suggest should be possible but may not be easy to get working unless you’re a networking guru. There are some of those here. Possible you may need to add static routes (or something like that) and understand how networking is setup on the PCs. What OS are they?

You didn’t say how you were testing if the PCs can ‘find each other’, so a bit curious about that as there could also be some issues there with OS or software that are adding to or causing the problem.

 

[Orcvader]

It is possible but requires fixing an IP on each device and probably tweaking some of the network settings in Windows (eg change from public to private). You will also need to manually look for the IP of the NAS on the PCs as auto discovery might not work. If you're trying to ping the PCs to each other, you need to change the firewall settings, by default it blocks ping requests from other devices.

Honestly though it'll be easier overall just to have everything under one network, it'll even open up the possibility to allow laptops and even mobiles on the WiFi to access the printer and NAS.