# Subnet playlist seperation question



## brett_the_bomb (Oct 24, 2009)

A little background first. A have a friend who has 20 something hd/dvrs. He runs into the issue where random play lists don't show up. What he wants to do is segment his playlists into a few groups so that with different inputs on his TV he can access all play lists through a few different dvrs. These few dvrs would only see like 8 play lists instead of the whole systems list and have random playlists missing. As it is now he has turned off whole home on a few to be able to know which list he will see.

From what I've seen on other posts subnet addressing can fix this. Can anyone help me how to set this up? 

I'm pretty well versed with network equip just never played with subnets. Is this setup on the dvrs or can the router define subnets based on Mac address? Any help getting us started would be great!


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

That would be more than 16 nodes on the DECA network and would never work correctly.


----------



## brett_the_bomb (Oct 24, 2009)

west99999;3160474 said:


> That would be more than 16 nodes on the DECA network and would never work correctly.


What if we separated into a couple different deca networks either by seperating the swm16s or through bsf's. Not be rude but there has to be way! Get creative and help us figure this out! The router mixing the network is obviously an obstacle but the swm stuff I think is pretty easy to separate.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

brett_the_bomb said:


> What if we separated into a couple different deca networks either by seperating the swm16s or through bsf's. Not be rude but there has to be way! Get creative and help us figure this out! The router mixing the network is obviously an obstacle but the swm stuff I think is pretty easy to separate.


A SWiM/DECA "cloud" is limited to 16 nodes, so one node would need to be a CCK. You can have more than one cloud, but they'll be combined by the router.

Hopefully someone with a lot more networking expertise can post.

"I would to it" by using more than one router.


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

Of course you can set them up on different networks but you will not be able to get to all share one playlist. How are the installed now with 20 something DVR's thats 40 something tuners so how are they installed now?


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

Also why does this person have 20 something DVR's that sound like a serious house or some serious overkill or is this is commercial place???


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

west99999 said:


> Of course you can set them up on different networks but you will not be able to get to all share one playlist. How are the installed now with 20 something DVR's thats 40 something tuners so how are they installed now?


I've worked with someone who needs dual SWiM-16s to feed all of his DVRs.
The software has problems when the number of DVRs gets above 10, which is what the OP is talking about, seeing.

Breaking them down to separate networks and playlists will stabilize, but of course they won't all be shared, so changing TV inputs between different receivers was how this wants to be addressed.

If some don't need internet access, then it's "easy" by not having a CCK on one or more of the DECA networks.

When all want internet access, then using more than one router is a way that works.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I've worked with someone who needs dual SWiM-16s to feed all of his DVRs.
> The software has problems when the number of DVRs gets above 10, which is what the OP is talking about, seeing.
> 
> Breaking them down to separate networks and playlists will stabilize, but of course they won't all be shared, so changing TV inputs between different receivers was how this wants to be addressed.
> ...


That would be the easiest solution.

- Merg


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Just to be clear here folks;

If two routers are used, then that would be two routers with their WAN (internet) ports connected to an ethernet switch, with another available port on the switch then connected to the DSL/Cable modem?

And of course both routers would be assigned the same IP address from the ISP? 

I realize I should know this basic networking question, but ...


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

I have a system with a similar situation.

I have 14 Boxes, 11 of them DVRs. Since the system can only show 10 Play Lists at a time, I have 10 DVRs (plus the non-DVRs) on one subnet and the 11th DVR on another subnet. If I ever add another DVR to my system, I would just simply connect it to the secondary subnet.

Anyhow, for your particular situation, you would need three routers and three CCKs.

Router #1 would be set to: (admin settings of router)
IP address of 192.168.1.1
Set DHCP range to 20 clients (for example) ie Range of 192.168.1.151 to 192.168.1.170
WAN Input would be connected to modem

CCK #1 would be attached to LAN output of Router #1
Create DECA Cloud of 8 connected DVRs to CCK #1
Assign Static IPs for each DVR (DHCP can be used, too, if you'd like)

DVR #1 would have: (set on DVR Menu Settings)
Static IP address of 192.168.1.*101* (outside of DHCP range set on router)
Default Gateway of 192.168.1.1 (IP address of Router #1)
DNS Server of 192.168.0.1 (Usually the IP address of modem)

DVR #2 
Static IP 192.168.1.*102*
Default Gateway 192.168.1.1
DNS Server 192.168.0.1

Repeat for DVRs #3 to #8 with corresponding last digits of IP address (103, 104, 105, etc.)
Default Gateway and DNS Server are the same for all 8 DVRs.

NEXT STEP.

Router #2 
Assign IP Address of 192.168.*2*.1
Connect WAN Port of Router #2 to LAN Port of Router #1
Set Router #2 with
Default Gateway of 192.168.*1*.1 (IP Address of Router #1)
DNS Server of 192.168.168.*0*.1 (IP Address of Modem)

Connect CCK #2 to LAN Port of Router #2

DVRs #9 to #16
Set Static IPs outside of DHCP range of router #2
For example 192.168.*2*.109 to 192.168.*2*.116
Default Gateway of 192.168.*2*.1
DNS Server of 192.168.*0*.1

STEP #3
Would be the similar to Step #2
Connect WAN of Router #3 to LAN of Router #1
Router #3 will have Gateway of 192.168.1.1 and DNS Server of 192.168.0.1
Connect CCK #3 to LAN Port of Router #3

Use 192.168.*3*.1 for IP Address of router #3 and as Default Gateway for DVRs #17 to 20+
Use 192.168.*3*.117 to 192.168.*3*.xxx for the remaining DVRs.

By the way, all Subnet Masks for all devices would be set to 255.255.255.0

All 20 something DVRs will now have internet access. However, if you plan to use the iPad App, you will only see the 8 or so DVRs that happen to be on the same subnet (via wi-fi) that you happen to be on. You would have to manually connect to each specific wi-fi network individually to have have access to the other DVRs.

The remote scheduler App (along with website) will show all 20+ DVRs. So, if you want to set recordings via internet, you can do so. Please note that the DVRs do not have to be connected to internet to schedule remote recordings.

Also, please note that the IP addresses and subnets that I used are just examples. You can use any IP address and subnet you wish. Just make sure that each cloud you set up falls within the same subnet of the router that it is connected to.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

DBSNewbie, what you have described is not subnetting. You've basically created three lans 192.168.1.x / 192.168.2.x / 192.168.3.x with three routers and 3 CCks.

It is possible to SUB-net an class C Lan on one router and have groups of devices that see each other but not into another group.

I've just returned from a 35 mile bike ride and am an hour behind on ACC basketball and a full card this afternoon of NFL.

I'll try to create some samples that only require one router on the home network.


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> DBSNewbie, what you have described is not subnetting. You've basically created three lans 192.168.1.x / 192.168.2.x / 192.168.3.x with three routers and 3 CCks.
> 
> It is possible to SUB-net an class C Lan on one router and have groups of devices that see each other but not into another group.
> 
> ...


I look forward to your suggestions.

I'm not an expert on networking, but was able to separate my DVRs through trial and error. I had tried to use different subnets on the same router, but could not achieve the desired results of separate "clusters" of DVRs, while all of them having access to the internet.

A single router would be the most economical route; however, at least I can confirm that the multiple Router/CCK configuration does work.

Enjoy your day of sports. I'm gonna be missing the Denver game, myself, as I have a kids b-day party to attend. Bummer


----------



## brett_the_bomb (Oct 24, 2009)

As VOS said different inputs is the idea. I think both ideas I have heard would work. Most economical is the goal. And least equipment. I havent been able to reach my buddy since posting. He works for dtv so its basically for fun/archiving since he likely records more than he can actually watch. He also had 2 of his brothers work for dtv so that's how he is soo flush with equipment.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I pounded this out during halftime so here goes . . . 

This isn't meant to be a tutorial on subnetting -- there are plenty of good articles, subnet calculators and other tools out there on the internet.

It's an example of grouping devices (dvrs) on a class C network so you limit what they can see - and what can be seen on the network.

Most home networks use 192.168.x.x with a mask of 255.255.255.0, which provides space for 254 devices on the network. The first and last addresses (0, 255) are used by the network.

The mask is the secret. . . it's a binary filter that allows the device to communicate or hides it.

Being binary, it's a power of 2. . . sometimes noted by /26 would be a mask of 192. This allows 64 addresses out of 256 to be used. Actually only 62 are usable. (32 total bits in the mask - 26 is 6 bits or 2 raised to the 6 power is 64).

So you could start your group at 192.168.1.193 with a mask of 255.255.255.192 and have a group from .193 to .254 available that can see each other. 

If 64 is too many, you can use any power of 2. Just remember if it's a group of 8, (mask 255.255.255.248) you only have 6 available addresses. Easy hint, 256 - the group size is the last octet of the mask.

Try it on a pc. Set the mask to 255.255.255.255 (1 unit in the group- no broadcast) . Windows will complain that it's not the same as the router, and you will need to provide a dns that's not dhcp.

You can surf but you won't see any other devices on your network. Just those in your group (of 1).

Sub-netting does pose problems with other devices on the same network seeing that group (iPad remote controlling a dvr) but that's another problem.


----------



## brett_the_bomb (Oct 24, 2009)

dennisj00;3161111 said:


> ...
> 
> Try it on a pc. Set the mask to 255.255.255.255 (1 unit in the group- no broadcast) . Windows will complain that it's not the same as the router, and you will need to provide a dns that's not dhcp.
> 
> ...


Thanks so much for this. I think this is the solution I am after.

If I follow this correctly, is it possible to leave enough room in each cluster to manually move the ipad between clusters? Or any other device for that matter. He does have a nomad lol.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Without getting into too much detail, I believe that either multiple VLANs or real LANs will be the best long term strategy.


----------



## brett_the_bomb (Oct 24, 2009)

Doug Brott;3161224 said:


> Without getting into too much detail, I believe that either multiple VLANs or real LANs will be the best long term strategy.


Maybe this is an idea that has already been proposed but many of us are diy guys. And many of us strive to be diy guys but a sub forum of diy how-to's would be awesome. I think a how to on something like this would be a great reference sticky but wouldn't belong in the normal forums of a product. Just an idea for some one much more important than I.


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> I pounded this out during halftime so here goes . . .
> 
> This isn't meant to be a tutorial on subnetting -- there are plenty of good articles, subnet calculators and other tools out there on the internet.
> 
> ...


I apologize for not understanding. All of the above is still very confusing to me. I have read and re-reread it several times, but I still don't quite get it.

The goal of the OP is to group the 20 or so DVRs into clusters of 8. Each cluster would only see the Unified Playlist of the 8 combined DVRs in its corresponding cluster and not the other clusters.

I'm not sure if the OP also wishes to have internet access to all 20+ DVRs, but in my case (11 DVRs on separate clusters), internet to all of them is required.

To be clear, can you explain what the values on DVRs #1 to #20 would be set to?

ie IP Address, Subnet Mask, DNS Server, etc.

Also, on the router itself. What settings would it have?

As I had mentioned on a previous post, I am using multiple routers and LANs (which I mistakenly called different subnets). If I could figure out how to get everything running off of one router, then all the better as it's less equipment that needs to be managed.

Sorry again for the dumb questions.

Thanks again.


----------



## brett_the_bomb (Oct 24, 2009)

DBSNewbie;3161357 said:


> I apologize for not understanding. All of the above is still very confusing to me. I have read and re-reread it several times, but I still don't quite get it.
> 
> The goal of the OP is to group the 20 or so DVRs into clusters of 8. Each cluster would only see the Unified Playlist of the 8 combined DVRs in its corresponding cluster and not the other clusters.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't feel bad. I only understood it on a general level until just about now. So after many hours of research here is my simple explanation. Set router to subnet of 255.255.255.192 then IP address's 192.168.1.2-63 are a cluster, 65-127 another, 129-191 another and 193-254 another. I "believe" you can either assign static IP's on the receivers or use dhcp reservations on the router. All would have internet and if u were using an ipad u would have to change its IP to access a specific cluster. Hope this helps.

The subnet ending with 192 means 4 clusters. You can look up the charts on line if u need to know an ending that offers more or less clusters but the cluster are multiples of 2 starting with 0=1 cluster. Don't remember the code for 2 clusters. Then 192=4. Again this A LOT of research to grasp. That is my lamen explanation.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

brett_the_bomb said:


> I wouldn't feel bad. I only understood it on a general level until just about now. So after many hours of research here is my simple explanation. Set router to subnet of 255.255.255.192 then IP address's 192.168.1.2-63 are a cluster, 65-127 another, 129-191 another and 193-254 another. I "believe" you can either assign static IP's on the receivers or use dhcp reservations on the router. All would have internet and if u were using an ipad u would have to change its IP to access a specific cluster. Hope this helps.
> 
> The subnet ending with 192 means 4 clusters. You can look up the charts on line if u need to know an ending that offers more or less clusters but the cluster are multiples of 2 starting with 0=1 cluster. Don't remember the code for 2 clusters. Then 192=4. Again this A LOT of research to grasp. That is my lamen explanation.


Yep, same here 

Lot of hours of research on this myself to finally get the hang of this subnetting, and still far from being considered anyone's expert. But the above is largely correct, just on the two points marked in red its actually the "subnet mask" in the router you would set to 255.255.255.192 for the four subnet clusters of 62, 63, 63, and 62 available addresses.

Or set the routers mask to 255.255.255.128 for two 126 available address size clusters.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

"HoTat2" said:


> Yep, same here
> 
> Lot of hours of research on this myself to finally get the hang of this subnetting, and still far from being considered anyone's expert. But the above is largely correct, just on the two points marked in red its actually the "subnet mask" in the router you would set to 255.255.255.192 for the four subnet clusters of 62, 63, 63, and 62 available addresses.
> 
> Or set the routers mask to 255.255.255.128 for two 126 available address size clusters.


You guys are picking up on this. The big thing to remember is that whatever IP address that you pick for a device will determine what other devices it can see. Also, most routers as a standard will only handle DHCP cleanly/easily for one subnet. What that means is that you would want to set the DHCP range so that it covers only one of the subnets. If you want the router to handle DHCP addresses for multiple subnets, you need to use something like IP-Helper Address so the client can find the DHCP server if it is on a different subnet and so that the DHCP server can assign an IP address to the correct subnet. If you are going to use subnets, it is easiest to use static IP addresses on all of the secondary subnets and leave DHCP to the primary subnet.

- Merg


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Nobody should feel bad about this or their posts. Subnetting is probably the trickiest part of networking and unless you're good at flipping bits and turning a binary sequence of 32 bits into four octets, it can be baffling. It's been a few years since I've done any of this in practice and most high end commercial routers help you avoid it by allowing vlans.

For a group of 20 dvrs, you're going to have to use a group of 32, which allows 30 active devices and needs a mask of 255.255.255.224. You also want to keep the router mask at 255.255.255.0 so it will see everything on the lan.

So for the first group, set the first dvr to 192.168.1.225 with the above mask. You continue the first group up to .254.

I'd also avoid DHCP and as Merg says set the DHCP range away from any of your groups. Also put a DNS entry for either your ISPs DNS (you can generally see those in your routers WAN setting or use the OPENDNS servers.

Happy segmenting!! Back to football!

Edit: Rereading, I see the OP wanted groups of 8 which means using a group of 16 and will waste 6 addresses. So a mask of 255.255.255.240 and start the group at 192.168.1.241 to .254.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

And I'll second what Dennis said about understanding all of this. I still need to look on-line when doing the calculations for subnetting as it's just that much easier for me.

- Metg


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

I've been trying to follow this and understand at least a little of it. So as an example, if I wanted to set up 8 groups of IP addresses with 30 clients in each subnet, I would use a mask of .224, and would end up with (assuming I'm using 192.168.0.xxx):
192.168.0.1 through 192.168.0.30
192.168.0.33 through 192.168.0.62
192.168.0.65 through 192.168.0.94
192.168.0.97 through 192.168.0.126
192.168.0.129 through 192.168.0.158
192.168.0.161 through 192.168.0.190
192.168.0.193 through 192.168.0.222
192.168.0.225 through 192.168.0.255

So how would I set up a single router (consumer class, not a high end Cisco) to handle everyone? If I assign it the "typical" 192.168.0.1 address it would be in the first group. Or do I give it a subnet mask of .000 and by doing that it can then see/communicate with all of the groups? Then would I set the gateway the same in all the groups (.1)?

But if I then program a client in the second group (.33 through .62) with a subnet mask of .224, it shouldn't recognize the router/gateway with an IP of .1 should it? Or will it because the subnet mask in the router is .000?

Let's stretch this question a bit farther. Let's say I want one computer in each of the groups to have access to all 255 clients, but the remainder to only have access within their individual groups. I would give the one computer (in each group) a subnet mask of .000 and that takes care of it?

Sorry to turn this into a network class, but my questions seem to be a logical follow-on to what has been posted so far.


----------



## brett_the_bomb (Oct 24, 2009)

carl6;3161807 said:


> I've been trying to follow this and understand at least a little of it. So as an example, if I wanted to set up 8 groups of IP addresses with 30 clients in each subnet, I would use a mask of .224, and would end up with (assuming I'm using 192.168.0.xxx):
> 192.168.0.1 through 192.168.0.30
> 192.168.0.33 through 192.168.0.62
> 192.168.0.65 through 192.168.0.94
> ...


+1

I wouldn't mind a little extra info


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Carl, here's a short answer. . . while I haven't tested this with all brands of home routers, you should be able to set your router to 192.168.0.1 with a mask of 255.255.255.0 but of course you can't use the .1 in your first group of clients.

I remember having a 'management' pc with a mask of 255.255.255.0 being able to see all the clients, but I don't think the masked clients (something less than .0 as the last octet) being able to see those pcs.

I think that goes under the 'other problems' I mentioned earlier.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

"dennisj00" said:


> Carl, here's a short answer. . . while I haven't tested this with all brands of home routers, you should be able to set your router to 192.168.0.1 with a mask of 255.255.255.0 but of course you can't use the .1 in your first group of clients.
> 
> I remember having a 'management' pc with a mask of 255.255.255.0 being able to see all the clients, but I don't think the masked clients (something less than .0 as the last octet) being able to see those pcs.
> 
> I think that goes under the 'other problems' I mentioned earlier.


Correct. The router being set with the subnet mask of 255.255.255.0 allows it to see all clients connected to it. It shouldn't matter what the IP address of the router is.

Here's a pretty good doc that shows how computers/router communicate depending on their IP address and subnet mask. Start at page 4 where it shows the examples.

http://www.mission-systems-inc.com/How Subnets Work in Practice.pdf

- Merg


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

The Merg said:


> Correct. The router being set with the subnet mask of 255.255.255.0 allows it to see all clients connected to it. It shouldn't matter what the IP address of the router is.
> 
> Here's a pretty good doc that shows how computers/router communicate depending on their IP address and subnet mask. Start at page 4 where it shows the examples.
> 
> ...


Hey, nice easy to read and understand document.

But to be clear from the doc., the (typically 4 or 5) LAN ports on a router are more than just an integrated ethernet switch, but can actually route packets between different LAN sub-networks (if the router's LAN interface is configured to cover both subnets of course)?


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> Hey, nice easy to read and understand document.
> 
> But to be clear from the doc., the (typically 4 or 5) LAN ports on a router are more than just an integrated ethernet switch, but can actually route packets between different LAN sub-networks (if the router's LAN interface is configured to cover both subnets of course)?


Mmmmm... Not exactly. The router is still routing packets within the same network, just a different subnet. As far as the router sees it, all the devices are on the same network.

- Merg


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

The Merg said:


> Mmmmm... Not exactly. The router is still routing packets within the same network, just a different subnet. As far as the router sees it, all the devices are on the same network.
> 
> - Merg


OK, but from the doc., the router changes the packet header information from its own LAN address set by the source on one subnet (under the "Next Hop" category in the doc.) to the actual destination address of the packet on another subnet when the router places the packet on the particular LAN port the destination host on the other subnet is connected to?

Just want to be clear that the LAN ports of a router are more than just an ethernet switch that can "switch" packets between physical ports, but only for hosts on the same network. Not between networks which falls into the area of "routing."


----------



## BAHitman (Oct 24, 2007)

It is not a wise idea to break up a subnet on some devices and not others with overlapping IP addressess... 

This can cause erroneous broadcasts to be seen by some devices on addressess other than the correct address, and I have seen this crash some consumer level devices, including routers...

it will NOT net you internet access on those devices that cannot "see" the router.


----------



## BAHitman (Oct 24, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> OK, but from the doc., the router changes the packet header information from its own LAN address set by the source on one subnet (under the "Next Hop" category in the doc.) to the actual destination address of the packet on another subnet when the router places the packet on the particular LAN port the destination host on the other subnet is connected to?
> 
> Just want to be clear that the LAN ports of a router are more than just an ethernet switch that can "switch" packets between physical ports, but only for hosts on the same network. Not between networks which falls into the area of "routing."


If host1 talks to host2 through the switch of the router, the router has no involvement whatsoever in the communication, except that the switch fabric simply sends the data to the destination port... only in cases where host1 has to talk to google which is on the other side of the router, that's where the translation and hop count comes into play


----------

