LAN & WAN - Does a Letter Really Change the Meaning of the Word?

Of course! Particularly when that one letter is a part of an acronym. As with the topic at hand, the difference between LAN and WAN lies deeper than the obvious spelling and phonetic. In many respects, there exist no single distinction between local area network (LAN) and wide area network (WAN). But there are, in reality, several differences that may well distinguish LAN from WAN.

The points to be considered are the following: geographic, connections, topology, usage, reliability and of course, the cost. We will first touch the comparison with regard to the geographic scope.

Scope

Given what LAN and WAN stand for, one can easily identify an immediate difference: the scope of WAN is clearly vast as compared to that of LAN. The former possesses networks that could spread across city to city, sometimes even on a broader scope. With that said, LAN may be deemed as an undersized version of a WAN and is usually limited to a single edifice or a residential house. So if you connect all the LANs then you may have just developed a WAN---a small scale WAN, that is.

Connections

On a local area network, Ethernet is the established standard for connecting computers or workstations. In here, wires and cables are but permanent. This arrangement allows interconnectivity among separate local area networks. As for the wide area networks, they almost always depend on common carriers or a system where they utilize or hire service providers to be able to interconnect.

With the issue on speed, LAN is approximately ten times faster than WAN. One cannot impartially compare the LAN's speed reaching 10 gigabits per second to a WAN's fastest speed of 155 megabits per second. (Talk about no competition.)

Network Topology

As shown in the previous paragraphs, WANs and LANs are configured differently. More often than not, the latter is inclined to be a peer-to-peer networking where one computer may share (and sometimes access) data and applications in other computer units within the network. While WAN operates in a client-to-server level and most, if not all, data originates from a central computer or server.

Usage

Continuing the discussion, the peer-to-peer sharing is commonly used to access files, as well as printers, scanners and other peripherals. The usage is somewhat controlled and restricted among a few groups of people. These users have their own passwords that will allow them to access a particular data (not the entire folder or drive). An administrator may also be present. In a WAN, it is not really the sharing of peripherals or whatnot, it stresses more on communications.

Reliability

LAN boasts a higher reliability rate because when one computer fails, all other will continue to operate. In WAN, this is not the scenario. When a unit falters in a WAN, most probably the rest will fail to function as well.

Cost

With the extent of WAN's reach, obviously this costs a lot. Not to mention the need for field experts like engineers to install and maintain all their machines. Sometimes, WAN also necessitates satellite links; yet another reason for its high set-up cost. Local area network, though housed in a single building, will prove to be more cost efficient.

So, in simple equation, WAN=vast reach=costly while LAN=limited extent=cost efficient.

Finally, to answer question posted above (yet again), there is a yawning gap between the WAN and the LAN.

Benedict Yossarian is specialises in internet marketing. Benedict recommends Comm store for networking hardware and Cat5 Cable. For IT training Benedict recommends New Horizons Learning Centres

How Do You Determine the Right Wide Area Network (WAN) Architecture For a Computer Network?

One of the most complicated decisions to make for an IT department concerns the architecture for a multi-site voice/data network. Should the network be based on simple T1 point-to-point bandwidth circuits? How about burstable DS3 bandwidth or maybe a single OC3 bandwidth cloud? No matter the bandwidth chosen .... the most efficient design should base the communication backbone on a MPLS configuration (Multi-Protocol Label Switching).

To get there, first and foremost in deciding about the WAN architecture of any organization communication network you must determine ....

- How many locations you would like to connect?

- Architecture - hub and spoke or mesh architecture?

- What applications would be run on this network .... Voice, Video, Data, all of the above?

- Precisely which applications will be run in case of Data?

- What will be the % each will take up of your QoS, the total of all three should be 100%?

- Voice is the premium level QoS and hence the most expensive as it is a real time communication, followed by video and then data.

- How many users precisely will be using the network at a given point of time at each location?

- What will be the concurrency factor? Are you are looking for 100% concurrency or you can manage with lesser concurrency?

- What is the scope of scalability at each location and hub location?

- Will the access to internet also be given to users?

- Internet at a central location can help you in implementing and enforcing various security policies of your organization.

- Do you want to give access to the network resources to a mobile user?

The answer to all these questions will help in arriving at the MPLS bandwidth required at each hub and spoke location.

Honestly speaking no organization should ideally try to do this calculation themselves. Instead they can hire a consultant or a telecom service provider to do this activity as they are experts in designing this solution. With their help you can easily decide upon the bandwidth for each location, select suitable router, make redundancy plans, routing the traffic on Atlantic or pacific routes, blah blah.

For help walking through the analysis .... and determining the best solution .... take advantage of the free help at DS3-Bandwidth.com.

Ideally I also recommend to give the freedom of providing and managing the routers at each location to the Telecom service provider. Then it becomes a managed solution and the service provider can easily monitor your network in the event of an outage. They then can remotely login into the routers and manage your complete network giving you higher uptimes and SLAs.

In the end .... take a deep breath and work through the steps above, also helps to increase SharePoint Performance. Following this simple game plan will get you to the right decision for your organizations network architecture.