Routing and bandwidth problem

[Rodolfo J. Paiz]

At 06:36 5/5/2004, you wrote:
>From: "Crucificator" <crucificator at xnet.ro>
> > why not use virtual adapters with ip's from different networks and use
> > only one card?
>
>Because then you'd be sharing 100Mb between the four networks.  Rodolfo said
>he wanted to give each client 100Mb connection to the router/server.  Still,
>it's not a *bad* idea, perhaps using two dual-ip cards...

I'm not hung up on everyone getting a 100 Mbps pipe to the server, since 
that particular capability would be used less frequently. Getting even 10 
Mbps to each tenant would be just fine as far as bandwidth goes, so we're 
OK there.

The reasons I had for thinking of separate cards were mostly related to the 
thought that security would be better by keeping each tenant totally 
separate, the odds of one tenant managing to get onto the other's network 
would be much lower by not connecting them to the same switch, and that I 
could assign different subnets to different tenants via DHCP and then 
clearly see where a problem is just by looking at the IP address. I had 
also assumed that limiting bandwidth per interface would be easier than 
doing it per IP address, but that's just a WAG.

I don't see a way to do this with virtual IP addresses, especially the 
assigning different subnets via DHCP bit. I *am* open to suggestions, 
though... that's why I posted here. :-)


-- 
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz at simpaticus.com
http://www.simpaticus.com