Routing and bandwidth problem

[Keith Morse]

On Wed, 5 May 2004, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:

> 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. :-)


I do favour the multiple nic route for just the same reasons you give 
above.  To help consolidate the nic's  so you don't have to come up with 5 
pci slots, check out http://www.mikrotik.com/ and look for "Routerboard 24 
Four Port Card".  This card has linux drivers.  In fact you might be 
interested in their RouterOS, but I don't believe has provisions for being 
an ftp server.  The base RouterOS download is free.