Czy wiesz, że

LYNX TCP/IP System over an existing infrastructure

10 lipiec 2012

One of the most common questions regarding LYNX is related to the behavior of this FERMAX TCP/IP system when we connect it to an existing TCP/IP infrastructure in a specific building. IN this article we are going to explain that LYNX can share the same infrastructure by default following some considerations.

LYNX TCP/IP System over an existing infrastructure:

 

Nowadays, many buildings include a TCP/IP infrastructure prepared to connect the PCs to a specific LAN. This is commonly used in office’s buildings but this is becoming typical also in residential buildings.

One of the most common questions regarding LYNX is related to the behavior of this FERMAX TCP/IP system when we connect it to an existing TCP/IP infrastructure in a specific building. IN this article we are going to explain that LYNX can share the same infrastructure by default following some considerations.

 

Considerations:

Due to the subnet mask we are using (255.0.0.0), LYNX system is practically 100% compatible with any existing TCP/IP infrastructure in any building. Normally, 80% of TCP/IP installations use Class B/C IP addresses with a subnet mask such as 255.255.0.0 or 255.255. In fact, Private IPs like 192.168.0.0 are the most common ones used by default in any commercial router.

In our case, we will use for LYNX a CLASS A private IP address which can be shared any infrastructure if the existing LAN does not have the same IP range. That means, we will be able to take advantage of the current infrastructure if there is not any existing LAN connected as 10.0.0.0 with a subnet mask 255.0.0.0 which may cause a conflict in IP packet transmissions.

In FERMAX we have checked this behavior, using our own company infrastructure. The result was that panel and VIVO monitors were working fine, as well as the other LAN at the same time. Both were working independently as if they were connected to different switches (no additional configuration required).

That means also that no external PC (the other ones belonging to the other LAN) can connect to the web-server of the VIVO monitors or panels. Therefore, this keeps the system safe from sabotage or possible DoS attacks.

The only way to interconnect two different LANs would be through the OSI LAYER 3 device (a router or a specific Layer 3 switch). In that case, we would have to set this router to interconnect some resources of these different LANs. However, at least for the moment, it is not interesting since we would make the system more vulnerable.

The main disadvantage could be that if the current infrastructure is not prepared for PoE, we would have to add PoE switches or to use external 12Vdc PSUs. Additionally, in this case, it would be recommendable to study carefully which are the best switches to connect our LYNX devices avoiding possible bottlenecks

In this case, bottlenecks is a real problem depending on the bandwidth consumption in the current infrastructure. So it is recommendable to have splits and redundant ways to distribute the bandwidth as much as possible.