OK, networking question...

I have 5 computers all connected via an unmanaged switch. Each one is called "computer 1", "computer 2", etc...

Each machine has only a local account.

Windows file sharing is enabled (network discovery, file and printer sharing, etc).

What I would like to do is be able to selectively share access to a folder with some of the other machines.

Is there a way to share the "abc123" folder on "computer 1" with ONLY computer "computer 4"?

 

I think that's possible, assuming each computer has unique user accounts.

Right click on folder->Properties->Sharing->advanced sharing->permissions->locations

You'd want to add the network location,

then follow the same path to users and give your user permission's to read/write.

 

when I get to locations, only the local machine is shown, and obviously I cannot add an account from a different machine if that machine is not shown....

I should add this is W7Pro and I am actually trying to share an entire attached external drive (logical drive letter).

 

Hmmm, under locations leave the local machine

under permissions add your local user if it's not already there and remove any others.

hit ok

then back on properties dialogue select the security tab

just double check the permissions are inline with what you want.

hit ok and you should be done.

Then map the share on the client computer and log in

 

You cant share per machine name, only by user. On the machine you want to share, you can create a local user account (ex machine2user) and give that permission to the share. Then when machine2 connects to it it will get prompted for the local account creds.

 

Or set up a home domain/workgroup


Does Win 7 still do workgroups?

 

Whiskers' plan did the trick. Thanks!

 

 

Anyone have any experience with ZyXel switches?

I am planning on needing a LACP switch for a synology 1815+ or similar, and these seem to be reasonably priced and they get decent reviews from people. Nothing stellar by Cisco/HP standards but they seem to get the job done at a nice price point for LACP and basic switching.

Looking at the 24 port, non POE GS1920 Series.

 

bump
...

 

Yolo

 

Why does one need LACP with gigabyte switch speeds?

 

I don't have any information on the ZyXel switches but in my long term planning and research for building a setup using the 1815+ I have read of several people using this Cisco switch.
It isn't priced much different and I have seen several people use it in there setup in my searching of forums and blogs. Not sure it is of any help but figured I would share.

 

One advantage is if you have several users using the NAS system or doing large transfers while streaming a movie off using PLEX on the 1815+ Stogie is using. It just helps to allows multiple users to get full possible bandwidth to the connected storage. It is probably overkill in most single user home setups. However, this is also a hobby and just fun to play around with for some of us too. Not sure if Stogie is using his at home or for a small business either.

 

You rock, thanks!


In terms of LACP needs, I will have multiple computers reading and writing large (10-1000+GB) data sets from the device simultaneously (small business usage, not home movies, etc.) and I need to be able to approach realistic upper limits of the Gigabit connection while working from simultaneous user machines. Yes Fiber would be a great option to/from the NAS, but currently the costs outweigh the benefits.

 

My friend works at TP Link so when I was shopping for switches I crosshopped between Cisco, TP Link, Zyxel, etc. I ended up with a non managed TPLink Switch that he was able to get for me at a nice price but they might have a managed switch that will fit your budget too. Build quality of the enclosure is excellent and warranty is great too. So much that when I was looking for a wired VPN router, I went back to him to get one.

 

Took the plunge and bought the Zyxel. We shall see. I liked the LACP plus the 4 10GB ports when I need them.

 

OK, network topography question...

I need to set up this managed switch and also set up a wifi AP.
The switch does not handle DHCP and I do not have a DHCP server.
My wired machines all have static IP addresses.
Some of my wifi devices do not have static IP address
Guest's wifi devices will not have static IP addresses.

Is there a reason NOT to attach the wireless AP with DHCP downstream from the switch and simply give it a range of DHCP assignable IP addresses outside the range used for the static assignments?

How significant will the risk be that a guest on the wifi (assuming it has the capability for a "guest network") will be able to access shared drives, etc. on the internal network?

Is there a reason to place the AP and DHCP upstream from the switch (and again give it a pool of assignable IPs outside the range of the statics)?

 

The way I have seen corporate type access points handle guest wifi is like you are describing. The access point will have a dedicated DHCP server for the Guest network that is not a part of your private LAN. It will then have a firewall rule that prevents users on the guest network from gaining access to your lan. It will only allow the guest network to access the internet. There may also be an option that disallows devices on the guest network from communicating with other devices on the guest network.

 

That's my hope, too, BUT...

I have at least one device (MBP) that will be on wifi and will need to access the internal network.

My hope is that the router/AP will have a regular and also a guest network, blocking the guest network from accessing internal resources but allowing the regular network to pass the traffic to the resources.

Looks like my home Netgear R6300 has this, so hopefully it will be pretty easy to set up on a different router:

 

Gaaaaaaaaaaar, I am an idiot...

For some reason I thought the managed switch would be able to handle the routing. I don't know why I thought that.

I will place the now-ordered wireless router between the modem and the switch, as I think it should be.

Cannot believe I didn't put 2 and 2 together from the start.

Ordered a Netgear R6400-100NAS AC1750 router from Newegg for $110.

What's funny is that for the life of me I couldn't get the switch to take the IP 10.0.1.1. It takes 10.0.1.2 no problem... That should have been my clue that there needs to be something upstream.

 

If you want your AP downstream, then you'll have to have some sort of DHCP server or router upstream to serve DHCP requests or none of your stuff will have IP addresses. For my home network, I have an ASUS wireless router/AP set downstream from my 16 port gigabit switch downstream from a VPN router downstream from the cable modem . Wireless router set up as an AP because the VPN router is serving as DHCP server.

 

is this engrish?

 

Put your wifi traffic on a separate VLAN

 

I can but the same device will be serving DHCP requests. I can point the switch to the DHCP IP (I assume I can point it to a downstream IP), but it would be easier to have the router/wifi between the modem and the switch and simply enable guest network on the wifi, no? What is the advantage of the separate VLAN over using the Guest feature, assuming I am rarely going to be having anyone use the Guest (in fact, I may leave it disabled most of the time). Also, will not be broadcasting the non-Guest SSID.


If I had a separate router and AP, I would totally agree but for my usage, that would be overkill. Eventually I will add a firewall/router instead of the router/wifi, and then I will move the wifi as an AP to a VLAN.

 

actually I think creating a guest network basically automates the process of creating a separate VLAN.

Also hiding your SSID isn't a security feature, it's still easy to find with free programs
Debunking Myths: Is Hiding Your Wireless SSID Really More Secure?

And disabling DHCP isn't much of a security feature especially if your router still uses common internal IP address schemes like 192.168.0.x, .1.x, .2.x, 10.0.0.x, 10.10.0.x, or 172.16.11.x
https://www.maketecheasier.com/does-...rove-security/

 

Interesting thoughts on not broadcasting the SSID.

 

Got it all hooked up, everything is working well. I still need to set up port forwarding for one machine and mess around with VLANs, but for now things seem stable.