Many ENBT's in one rack ?

I need to separate a flat network that is getting new remote connections into several separate nets that don't talk to each other at all.
My initial thought was simply to use several ENBT cards and dedicate one PLC as a communication concentrator (or potentially a repeater if forwarding of data between nets is necessary).

But to do that we are talking about 6 ENBT cards in one rack since I believe that none of the multiport cards can have their ports configured
for separate networks. Some PLC's with dual ports can, but not the ENBT style cards. It would be great if someone would tell me I'm wrong about that.

Seperate nets:

• PLC's
• SCADA servers
• Cellular Remote Telemetry
• Radio Remote Telemetry
• Hardwired Remote Telemetry
• Corporate Network (DMZ)

Is this as crazy as it sounds? Whats the alternative?

Only 6?......

As long as you don't exceed the controller's memory capacity and/or allowed established CIP connections limit you could install 16 ENB(2, 3)Ts.

I believe my personal 'bridge record' is 11 ENet, 2 DNet and 1 CNet in one 17 slot 1756 chassis;two CPUs- one dedicated exclusively for comms...Left a spare slot for 'future development' of course......

Ahh... CIP connections limit, that didn't occur to me.

That's quite a rack you have there.

dmargineau said:

I believe my personal 'bridge record' is 11 ENet, 2 DNet and 1 CNet in one 17 slot 1756 chassis;two CPUs- one dedicated exclusively for comms...Left a spare slot for 'future development' of course......

Click to expand...

Now that's an impressive rack!

I'd probably just flag that the ENBT is pretty outdated now - unless you're using them because you already have them and need to cut down on cost, I'd go for 1756-EN2T's at a minimum.

Copy that, I am just using the word ENBT as a placeholder. Not sure what a generic term for Contrologix models would be... Comm Cards?

You should've seen the 12 pointer I've miserably missed last week...Now THAT was a rack......

Back to the real world now...You should be fine... It's not the number of subnets but what's residing therein...From your description of the on-hand topology you don't have to worry about 'maxing out' a CLX, even a Lx1 Class.

Why not use VLANS? Let a router handle the routing, that is what it is made for.

My thinking is that isn't enough isolation to meet potential (albeit imaginary) threats and also would add a layer of complexity that is beyond the typical maintenance folks that will be handling this. I do get your point though.