I got a client server network want to convert to wireless?
Amendment to my original post. I read the instruction incorrectly. It's not a replacement but an addition to the existing network. Keeping the old network in tack. Please tell me what is the purpose of the faceplate?Original post. I'm definitely a newbie. This is my school project. The scenario is, I got a client-server network want to convert to wireless the offices and the warehouse. The network starts in a computer room with a T1 Demarcation router, then to the main router, firewall, Ethernet switch, from the switch to a server and across-patch panel which leads to offices. From the patch to a faceplate using a horizontal line to an office PC. Now, another segment of the network is the warehouse. From the Ethernet switch using fiber optic cable to a remote Ethernet switch to 2 PCs. Tell me if I'm going to take the correct steps for the conversion.
First, in the computer room replace the main router with a wireless. Then get rid of the cross-patch in the computer room and the faceplate in the office. In the warehouse get rid of the remote Ethernet switch.
I'm stuck there, what do I need to put in the office and the warehouse to receive the signal from the wireless router in the computer room? Do I need to put wireless routers to receive the signal from the computer room to the office and the warehouse? I have been reading articles claiming that is possible. Is this true?
Thank you in advance.
Casimir Why would you replace cables with wireless? Wired networks are almost always faster, more secure and reliable.
If you need wireless access in a particular area, add a wireless access point in that area.
What you seem to be describing is a wireless bridge, which is quite possible, but normally only used where running cables or fibre optic is not possible. In a commercial system, you would use dedicated equipment, but it is possible to do with routers in bridge mode. Are you sure you have understood the question correctly.We all need to start somewhere so don't mind giving you a few pointers 
As @noiseboy72 states why would you replace cable with wireless.... //static.avforums.com/styles/avf/smilies/facepalm.gif
By all means you can add wireless to an existing network.
If a client came to me asking me to replace all wired with wireless then I would explain why you wouldn't and if they insisted I probably wouldn't quote as it would be more hassle than its worth trying to "fix" it afterwards.
Wireless routers are generally used in the home or small business at best, they are cheap and not designed to run for businesses.This one sounds like it is a bigger business, they have a computer room and dedicated boxes e.g. firewall and router etc. as well as optical fibre to link switches suggesting that is is some distance away possibly over 100m.That in itself is not going to work over wireless.Equally putting a wireless router in the middle of a computer room is not a good idea as usually there is lots of metal so apart for users in the computer room itself, the WiFi signal probably won't get much beyond the walls...
So some important questions to ask
1) How many users are there
2) How big\complicated layout are there
3) What's the budget?
I would review the existing wired network to check it is all up to scratch and then I would look at overlaying a wireless using the existing wiring (or new) to provide the backhaul.
You should use Wireless Access Points (WAP) and these could be typically ceiling mount and use ceiling voids for new cable runs that you would need for the backhaul.Depending on the size of the organisation you might have anything from a few to many WAPs round the buildings.You would typically do a survey to determine where you need to place them.
Hope that is a starter for you.It could be almost a trick question, but if your school\uni is suggesting this is an appropriate "conversion" then I would double check the course ... I would agree with the others here that in the real world, one would never do this and as ChuckMountain suggests one would be explaining to client why this approach is very bad idea and not taking the job.
Just to pick up a couple of other thoughts:
Be sure to understand that in enterprise data networking terms a "router" is to hell and back different from the SOHO"get-you-on-the-Internet" omni-box lay people often call a "router."
"Proper" routers are not "Wi-Fi" providers - don't fall into the trap of assuming that because something is called a "router" that it "does Wi-Fi." In an enterprise system, the routing devices that we have at the "edge" and/or availing inter-subnet connectivity rarely offer Wi-Fi.
Yes, a SOHO get-you-on-the-Internet omni-box does "route" and contains a routing engine (as does every other device that uses IP,) but it's pretty basic and such boxes also do a lot of "other" things - ethernet switch, modem, NAT, firewall, DHCP Server, DNS Proxy, yada, yada, and yes there's a Wi-Fi AP built in too. However, enterprise scale system buiders would not be using such omni-box devices. Attached to the "Using Two Routers Together" FAQ pinned in this forum is a block diagram showing many of the functions of a SOHO get-you-on-the-Internet omni-box: In an enterprise system many, if not all, of those functions would be implemented in separate boxes.
It is one of the ironies of deploying large scale Wi-Fi infrastructure that one usually ends up putting more cabled infrastructure in rather than taking it out: Wi-Fi AP's nearly always need to be deployed in places where there is not any data or power available, so we need to run in new cables to the AP locales. Then those cables need to plug into something "the other end" so we need to check there's sufficient ethenet switch ports available and possibly buy more ethernet switches and/or replace them with Power Over Ethernet (POE) capable devices (POE is the most convenient way to get electrical power to Wi-Fi AP's - even then one has to plan carefully the number of AP's deployed versus the POE available on each switch.) After that there's some planning to do to engineer the bandwith (speed) required between the backhaul infrastructure components which might mean 10Gig links and/or link aggregation is required.
Next there's the very much mis-understood concept of "Wi-Fi signal." There is no such thing as "Wi-Fi Signal." Most people think that Wi-Fi is availed by some ethereal energy field called "Wi-Fi Signal" with permeates the ether like The Force. But it isn't like that at all. Wi-Fi links are a two-way conversation between communicating peers like walkie-talkies not a one way broadcast like television. Think of it in audio terms: Wi-Fi is you and a few mates chatting in the pub. It's not a one way "lecture" with everyone in a room passively listening in rapt adoration to the speaker. Just like the pub conversation, for it to proceed usefully, "only one person at a time can speak," - same for Wi-Fi.
So when planning Wi-Fi infrastructure, one starts by assessing the number of clients in each cell, their throughput requirements (speed) then figuring our how many AP's to deploy and where to deploy them rather than using an (overly) simplistic idea of simply painting an area with (fictitious) "Wi-Fi Signal."
To cite example from my own experience, I've availed Wi-Fi in refectories, assembly halls, conference centers, etc. In such rooms a single AP would easily provide the geographical coverage required. But with (say) 100 delegates present, (bear in mind the "only one thing can transmit paradigm,) you've got a 101 to 1 "air time" contention ratio. The throughput would be dreadful, if it even worked at all. Instead, one would deploy multiple AP's - I'd want at least 4 for that number of clients, which drops you down to contention ratios of the order of 26 to 1 in each cell.
The very best way to improve the Wi-Fi contention ratios is to remove as much as possible from Wi-Fi leaving more "air time" available for the remaining Wi-Fi devices. So far from turning all our servers, fixed (non moving) computer, printers, scanners, copiers, etc into Wi-Fi devices, we leave as many of them as possible wired.
In summation, this is way more complicated that just looking at some kit and saying "what shall we replace this box with so we can throw the incumbent away and do it all with Wi-Fi." Things like this need to be (and in the real world are) planned holistically starting with the user requirements then taking a view on how to achieve it, rather than starting with the "kit" and looking for a problem for it to solve.
I am sure we can collectively pursue this further as an academic exercise and tease out the minutia of various aspects, but in the real world, we simply wouldn't do it the way it's been posited. Hi, So far from what I have been reading it's probably not cost-effective to go wireless. The office has one PC and the warehouse two PCs. This could cost quite a bit of money. Personally, I could not justify it. Here is the current scenario. Could you please take a look at this and maybe suggest something.
https://www.avforums.com/attachments/upload_2018-6-6_11-59-49-png.1025830/ Excuse me for asking? But how is this a “school project”, your profile says 59.Or are you a teacher trying to do a scenario for students?
As others have said. Removing wired Ethernet and fibre links for wireless is madness.If you need to add WiFi then use WiFi Access Points hardwired back to the main switch in the relevant area.
If it’s a large area needing WiFi then look at a mesh network of AP’s. Ubiquity Unifi APs are good for this and you might want a POE switch to link them in.
WiFi is an addition to a network, not a wired replacement. If the objective is to avail Wi-Fi in both office and warehouse, then following is how I would proceed.
For the purposes of discussion and based on the number of wired PC's, I will assumethe number of Wi-Fi devices anticipated in each locale is low (less than 10) and the geographical size is small - less that 10mx10m in each locale. If those assumptions are incorrect, then advise and we can adjust as required.
Leave the incumbent infrastructure exactly as is. After all, it's working (isn't it...?)
In the warehouse, add a Wi-Fi Access Point cabled back to the warehouse switch. The nearer you can deploy said AP the the locale you expect the Wi-Fi clients to spend most of there time, the better. If the warehouse contains much in the way of Wi-Fi "unfriendly" structures such as metal racks and shelving, barrels of wet stuff, then more AP's might be required. A Wi-Fi survey in advance could be conducted to aid planning. For a single (or not many) AP's, replacing the switch with a POE switch may not be cost effective and using in-line POE injectors or AP's with their own individual "wall wart" PSU's may be preferable on cost grounds.
In the office, do exactly the same thing. However, in that locale, evidence suggests there is only a single ethernet link available. To facilitate some additional ethenet ports, either run some additional cables from the server room cross patch & switch or deploy an additional ethernet switch in the office. If you don't need many ports, then a small "desktop" switch is only a few tens of pounds. I believe there are even some POE capable ones in this price bracket these days.
While you are about it, you might care to have a think about the capacity of the switch-switch and switch-office links. If they are "only" 100mbps (AKA "fast") ethenet, it might be an opportunity to consider upgrading to 1000mbps (AKA "Gigabit.") Whether that's possible and how easy/cheap it is to do so, depends on on the model and facilities of the incumbent switches and the fibre optic cable type (there's more than one variant.)
If buying multiple AP's in such a scenario, one might consider something a bit more "pro-sumer" that can be managed as a single enterprise. I've not used them, but others here speak well of Ubiqity, but there are other brands.
Finally, and outside the remit or your brief, are you sure your firewall is actually a firewall...? As draw, traffic could be potentially be completely bypassing it. Maybe it's only a web proxy which to work as indicated would need the client device to be configured explicitly to use it. Similarly, the T1 demarcation box may not actually be a "router" - if it were there would be little value in having another router immediately behind it unless rtr2 is there to moderate which traffic goes via your pix and which bypasses it. If you cite make/model of all your boxes, someone here will probably recognise what you have and how it's all working. Apart from the bypassing of the PIX firewall via the router, and the router names I can't see what's wrong with the picture\solution.(As the others have said too)
If there is a performance\hardware issue with one or more boxes then fix them.
Even if the infrastructure was older and only 100 megabit it would still be more than an adequate for most needs.WiFi would not give you any consistent greater bandwidth and certainly an upgrade to gigabit if required would be far better.You would have to add WiFi cards into all the PCs and Servers.Servers can often have different expansion slots and I doubt you will find a WiFi card in that format for obvious reasons.
You don't mention how far the fibre length is to the warehouse, would assumes fairly close but it could literally be miles away.
If you just want to add wireless to allow mobile, laptops, tablets etc. then do as @mickevh states.
Otherwise if ain't broke don't fix it   Yes, that is correct. I'm either 59 or 60 depending what country I'm in. But that is another story. I'm what is called a late bloomer. I recently went back to Southern New Hampshire University taking IT. I have dabbled in some programming before but networking is very foreign to me. I know the concept of networks but once you start talking all the tech stuff I'm lost. You tech people have your own language. LOL. I'm just going to stick an AP in the office and warehouse. Which to me does not make much sense because I'm still going to have to hardwire it to the main switch or router.
So, I don't see the advantage of having a wireless, unless you can think of one?
In this scenario, we were not given much detail about the network how many users, distances Here's the requirement for this project: "Using the Basic Network Diagram template in Visio, create and describe a diagram that makes it possible for the “warehouse” and “offices” to have a wireless connection. Be sure to label each item. Paste a screenshot of your diagram in your Word document."
Thank you very much for all your help. So did you do the diagram above or was that provided to you?
I would personally interpret that question as provide a Wireless method of connecting to the network in those areas.
Follow what @mickevh has said.
The issue with sticking just one in might work but you might have dead zones depending on the room.
Pages:
[1]
2