help me understand how these two configurations will work

[bwana]

in this case, pc 1 should not be able to see pc2 because pc1 can only search on 192.168.1.0 due to its netmask of 255.255.255.0. But what if the netmask is changed to 255.255.0.0? like so

in this case pc1 should also be able to see both routers
(btw, dhcp is turned off everywhere)
Will pc1 'load balance? in other words, if pc1 wants to connect to google, will it try to connect through both routers and the packet that gets back first establish the connection?

 

[ColinTaylor]

Will pc1 'load balance? in other words, if pc1 wants to connect to google, will it try to connect through both routers and the packet that gets back first establish the connection?

No. PC1 will send its traffic to the address that is set as its gateway, i.e. 192.168.1.1.

 

[bwana]

OK. will pc 2 be visible from pc1? Could I type in pc2's ip address in file explorer of pc1 and navigate to it?

 

[ColinTaylor]

OK. will pc 2 be visible from pc1? Could I type in pc2's ip address in file explorer of pc1 and navigate to it?

In your second diagram, yes. Because you have created one single large subnet with your netmask of 255.255.0.0. That subnet covers 192.168.0.1 to 192.168.255.254.

 

[bwana]

thanks that what i thought. so pc2 could even navigate to the admin panel of router 1. it just won't talk to the internet from router 1.

 

[ColinTaylor]

thanks that what i thought. so pc2 could even navigate to the admin panel of router 1. it just won't talk to the internet from router 1.

Yes, but remember to set the same netmasks on the routers as well as the PCs.

 

[coxhaus]

I think you will be much better off running a small business router like a Cisco RV340 router.

You also need to state what you really want to accomplish in your network.

 

[cptnoblivious]

I'm pretty sure you could also handle this with a dual-wan capable router ... unless you're looking for some sort of redundancy in case of hardware failures, but then you'd need to do more work to have the systems pick the router that's still 'up'

Totally agree with @coxhaus , key is what you're looking to accomplish. Otherwise this could be a solution in search of a problem

 

[MichaelCG]

The way it is drawn, no the connections won't be load-balanced without a router that supports that.

Can PC1 see PC2? Yes and no.

YES
- they share a single L1/L2 network segment
- any broadcast traffic on either will be seen by all

NO
- routed IP traffic won't really work because of the netmasks

Overall, this is kind of security by obscurity since it is trivial to bypass the netmask restriction. An end user could just add a static route on the PC to directly address the other network. DHCP also will not work as expected since this is a shared broadcast domain.

 

[cptnoblivious]

The way it is drawn, no the connections won't be load-balanced without a router that supports that.

Can PC1 see PC2? Yes and no.

YES
- they share a single L1/L2 network segment
- any broadcast traffic on either will be seen by all

NO
- routed IP traffic won't really work because of the netmasks

Overall, this is kind of security by obscurity since it is trivial to bypass the netmask restriction. An end user could just add a static route on the PC to directly address the other network. DHCP also will not work as expected since this is a shared broadcast domain.

The second picture, PC1 & PC2 are on the same network, 192.168.0.0/16

I.E. Supernetted.

Between the PC's there won't be any "routed" traffic, they both know the destination is local