Hi All

Any advice appreciated on the following:

We have a completely internal AD and AD integrated DNS domain, with 2 DC's
and one member server plus around 30 clients all on a Cat5e switched network
(take it that there is currently no internet connectivity, and OS is W2K
Advanced Server)

Would like to enable the servers to communicate amongst themselves for
replication, etc. on a separate backbone, but also give each a direct way to
communicate with the rest of the network. Hence, we're looking at
multi-homing all of the servers, one NIC being attached to a standalone Cu
switch (a device we have 'spare' at the moment) with the rest of the servers
(plus a NAS device), and the other NIC being attached to the network as a
whole through switches in place at present.

What's the best way to configure routing and DNS so that each server
communicates on one specific NIC for server connections, and the other NIC
for user connections?

TIA

(please reply to the group, email address is spam filtered)

Report this post to a moderator

I wouldn't bother, you won't gain anything! What are you trying to achieve?

Andy


"Cisco_Newbie" <Cisco_Newbie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:b5l3ap$8gg$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Hi All
>
> Any advice appreciated on the following:
>
> We have a completely internal AD and AD integrated DNS domain, with 2 DC's
> and one member server plus around 30 clients all on a Cat5e switched
network
> (take it that there is currently no internet connectivity, and OS is W2K
> Advanced Server)
>
> Would like to enable the servers to communicate amongst themselves for
> replication, etc. on a separate backbone, but also give each a direct way
to
> communicate with the rest of the network. Hence, we're looking at
> multi-homing all of the servers, one NIC being attached to a standalone Cu
> switch (a device we have 'spare' at the moment) with the rest of the
servers
> (plus a NAS device), and the other NIC being attached to the network as a
> whole through switches in place at present.
>
> What's the best way to configure routing and DNS so that each server
> communicates on one specific NIC for server connections, and the other NIC
> for user connections?
>
> TIA
>
> (please reply to the group, email address is spam filtered)
>
>

Report this post to a moderator

We're trying to keep server to server, or server to NAS device traffic just
between those devices and away from the switches that client workstations
use to communicate between each other.

For example, we might want to do a database archive from one CRM server to
the NAS device, but wouldn't want that traffic hitting the same switches as
users trying to log in to a DC or access company data on a file server.

"Bigmaggot" <bigmaggotnews@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b5n1k1$gqn$1$8300dec7@new
s.demon.co.uk...
> I wouldn't bother, you won't gain anything! What are you trying to
achieve?
>
> Andy
>
>
> "Cisco_Newbie" <Cisco_Newbie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:b5l3ap$8gg$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > Hi All
> >
> > Any advice appreciated on the following:
> >
> > We have a completely internal AD and AD integrated DNS domain, with 2
DC's
> > and one member server plus around 30 clients all on a Cat5e switched
> network
> > (take it that there is currently no internet connectivity, and OS is W2K
> > Advanced Server)
> >
> > Would like to enable the servers to communicate amongst themselves for
> > replication, etc. on a separate backbone, but also give each a direct
way
> to
> > communicate with the rest of the network. Hence, we're looking at
> > multi-homing all of the servers, one NIC being attached to a standalone
Cu
> > switch (a device we have 'spare' at the moment) with the rest of the
> servers
> > (plus a NAS device), and the other NIC being attached to the network as
a
> > whole through switches in place at present.
> >
> > What's the best way to configure routing and DNS so that each server
> > communicates on one specific NIC for server connections, and the other
NIC
> > for user connections?
> >
> > TIA
> >
> > (please reply to the group, email address is spam filtered)
> >
> >
>
>

Report this post to a moderator

Couldn't you simply put all the servers on one switch, and connect that switch
to the others that your workstations are on? In effect setting up 2 separate
networks, one of servers and one of clients, and just linking the two. Maybe
the logistics don't allow this, or maybe I'm looking at it crosseyed, but it
seems this simple to me


"Cisco_Newbie" <Cisco_Newbie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:b5nd3f$co0$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> We're trying to keep server to server, or server to NAS device traffic just
> between those devices and away from the switches that client workstations
> use to communicate between each other.
>
> For example, we might want to do a database archive from one CRM server to
> the NAS device, but wouldn't want that traffic hitting the same switches as
> users trying to log in to a DC or access company data on a file server.
>
> "Bigmaggot" <bigmaggotnews@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:b5n1k1$gqn$1$8300dec7@new
s.demon.co.uk...
> > I wouldn't bother, you won't gain anything! What are you trying to
> achieve?
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> > "Cisco_Newbie" <Cisco_Newbie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:b5l3ap$8gg$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > > Hi All
> > >
> > > Any advice appreciated on the following:
> > >
> > > We have a completely internal AD and AD integrated DNS domain, with 2
> DC's
> > > and one member server plus around 30 clients all on a Cat5e switched
> > network
> > > (take it that there is currently no internet connectivity, and OS is W2K
> > > Advanced Server)
> > >
> > > Would like to enable the servers to communicate amongst themselves for
> > > replication, etc. on a separate backbone, but also give each a direct
> way
> > to
> > > communicate with the rest of the network. Hence, we're looking at
> > > multi-homing all of the servers, one NIC being attached to a standalone
> Cu

> > > switch (a device we have 'spare' at the moment) with the rest of the
> > servers
> > > (plus a NAS device), and the other NIC being attached to the network as
> a
> > > whole through switches in place at present.
> > >
> > > What's the best way to configure routing and DNS so that each server
> > > communicates on one specific NIC for server connections, and the other
> NIC
> > > for user connections?
> > >
> > > TIA
> > >
> > > (please reply to the group, email address is spam filtered)
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Report this post to a moderator

This can be done but it will require a complicated setup and I doubt anyone
here will spend a long time answering this Q when you only have 30 users and
I dont think you've got an issue with bandwidth even if you are transferring
large files/databases or whatever between servers!

Andy

"Cisco_Newbie" <Cisco_Newbie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:b5nd3f$co0$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> We're trying to keep server to server, or server to NAS device traffic
just
> between those devices and away from the switches that client workstations
> use to communicate between each other.
>
> For example, we might want to do a database archive from one CRM server to
> the NAS device, but wouldn't want that traffic hitting the same switches
as
> users trying to log in to a DC or access company data on a file server.
>
> "Bigmaggot" <bigmaggotnews@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:b5n1k1$gqn$1$8300dec7@new
s.demon.co.uk...
> > I wouldn't bother, you won't gain anything! What are you trying to
> achieve?
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> > "Cisco_Newbie" <Cisco_Newbie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:b5l3ap$8gg$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > > Hi All
> > >
> > > Any advice appreciated on the following:
> > >
> > > We have a completely internal AD and AD integrated DNS domain, with 2
> DC's
> > > and one member server plus around 30 clients all on a Cat5e switched
> > network
> > > (take it that there is currently no internet connectivity, and OS is
W2K[c
olor=darkred]
> > > Advanced Server)
> > >
> > > Would like to enable the servers to communicate amongst themselves for
> > > replication, etc. on a separate backbone, but also give each a direct
> way
> > to
> > > communicate with the rest of the network. Hence, we're looking at
> > > multi-homing all of the servers, one NIC being attached to a[/color]
standalone
> Cu

> > > switch (a device we have 'spare' at the moment) with the rest of the
> > servers
> > > (plus a NAS device), and the other NIC being attached to the network
as
> a
> > > whole through switches in place at present.
> > >
> > > What's the best way to configure routing and DNS so that each server
> > > communicates on one specific NIC for server connections, and the other
> NIC
> > > for user connections?
> > >
> > > TIA
> > >
> > > (please reply to the group, email address is spam filtered)
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Report this post to a moderator

Thanks for your reply. Yeah, we're discussing using a 'cascade', i.e.
servers + NAS into our spare copper switch, then that switch being linked to
the user network. However, we really need a better switch device (no budget
, 'cos the servers are going to be hitting that between themselves, and
the user traffic will have to come through that switch to reach the servers.
That's why we were thinking multi-homed servers and looking at trying to
connect one set of server NIC's to the copper switch, and the other set into
a switch that went directly into the user network.

But then there start to be fairly major complications in terms of name
resolution, etc.

Any ideas on this front, especially in regard to a server VLAN?

In reply to BigMaggot, I appreciate your input to the discussion, but would
like to say that real world case studies are essential to non-paper MCSE's -
this is an appropriate forum for discussions on name resolution and network
infrastructure. There used to be quite a few posters who relished the
challenge of any MS networking prob that was sent...shame we lost some of
those guys
Re. traffic and 30 users, have you ever implemented GoldMine FrontOffice?!
We also know from experience that archiving IS a very heavy hit on
bandwidth - we can't do a lot of stuff after hours 'cos our MD nearly always
works late. It's just much more efficient to keep heavy traffic within a
smaller array of devices - cuts down ID10T support calls


"Seifer Almasy" < theonlyavailablenameREMOVE@yah
oo.REMOVEcom> wrote in
message news:_%Qfa.3986255$zx5.601417@news.easynews.com...
> Couldn't you simply put all the servers on one switch, and connect that
switch
> to the others that your workstations are on? In effect setting up 2
separate
> networks, one of servers and one of clients, and just linking the two.
Maybe
> the logistics don't allow this, or maybe I'm looking at it crosseyed, but
it
> seems this simple to me
>
>
> "Cisco_Newbie" <Cisco_Newbie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:b5nd3f$co0$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > We're trying to keep server to server, or server to NAS device traffic
just
> > between those devices and away from the switches that client
workstations[color
=green]
> > use to communicate between each other.
> >
> > For example, we might want to do a database archive from one CRM server[/color]
to
> > the NAS device, but wouldn't want that traffic hitting the same switches
as
> > users trying to log in to a DC or access company data on a file server.
> >
> > "Bigmaggot" <bigmaggotnews@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:b5n1k1$gqn$1$8300dec7@new
s.demon.co.uk...
> > > I wouldn't bother, you won't gain anything! What are you trying to
> > achieve?
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > >
> > > "Cisco_Newbie" <Cisco_Newbie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > > news:b5l3ap$8gg$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > > > Hi All
> > > >
> > > > Any advice appreciated on the following:
> > > >
> > > > We have a completely internal AD and AD integrated DNS domain, with
2
> > DC's
> > > > and one member server plus around 30 clients all on a Cat5e switched
> > > network
> > > > (take it that there is currently no internet connectivity, and OS is
W2K[c
olor=darkred]
> > > > Advanced Server)
> > > >
> > > > Would like to enable the servers to communicate amongst themselves[/color]
for[c
olor=darkred]
> > > > replication, etc. on a separate backbone, but also give each a[/color]
direct
> > way
> > > to
> > > > communicate with the rest of the network. Hence, we're looking at
> > > > multi-homing all of the servers, one NIC being attached to a
standalone
> > Cu
> > > > switch (a device we have 'spare' at the moment) with the rest of the
> > > servers
> > > > (plus a NAS device), and the other NIC being attached to the network
as
> > a
> > > > whole through switches in place at present.
> > > >
> > > > What's the best way to configure routing and DNS so that each server
> > > > communicates on one specific NIC for server connections, and the
other

> > NIC
> > > > for user connections?
> > > >
> > > > TIA
> > > >
> > > > (please reply to the group, email address is spam filtered)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Report this post to a moderator

OK, lets get the ball rolling then.

How about adding a NIC to all of your servers and make sure they are
configured to be on a separate subnet.

How about then modifying the hosts file on the servers to point to the IP
you've just gave your NIC on the other servers, that should divert a bit of
traffic. Then create a new subnet in Sites and Services and move all servers
to it.

Or you could increase the metric?

This above is just my quick thoughts and is here to promote discussion,
please leave your comments and views.

Thanks,

Andy

"Cisco_Newbie" <Cisco_Newbie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:b5qh3j$11g$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Thanks for your reply. Yeah, we're discussing using a 'cascade', i.e.
> servers + NAS into our spare copper switch, then that switch being linked
to
> the user network. However, we really need a better switch device (no
budget
> , 'cos the servers are going to be hitting that between themselves, and
> the user traffic will have to come through that switch to reach the
servers.
> That's why we were thinking multi-homed servers and looking at trying to
> connect one set of server NIC's to the copper switch, and the other set
into
> a switch that went directly into the user network.
>
> But then there start to be fairly major complications in terms of name
> resolution, etc.
>
> Any ideas on this front, especially in regard to a server VLAN?
>
> In reply to BigMaggot, I appreciate your input to the discussion, but
would
> like to say that real world case studies are essential to non-paper
MCSE's -
> this is an appropriate forum for discussions on name resolution and
network
> infrastructure. There used to be quite a few posters who relished the
> challenge of any MS networking prob that was sent...shame we lost some of
> those guys
> Re. traffic and 30 users, have you ever implemented GoldMine FrontOffice?!
> We also know from experience that archiving IS a very heavy hit on
> bandwidth - we can't do a lot of stuff after hours 'cos our MD nearly
always
> works late. It's just much more efficient to keep heavy traffic within a
> smaller array of devices - cuts down ID10T support calls
>
>
> "Seifer Almasy" < theonlyavailablenameREMOVE@yah
oo.REMOVEcom> wrote in
> message news:_%Qfa.3986255$zx5.601417@news.easynews.com...
> > Couldn't you simply put all the servers on one switch, and connect that
> switch
> > to the others that your workstations are on? In effect setting up 2
> separate
> > networks, one of servers and one of clients, and just linking the two.
> Maybe
> > the logistics don't allow this, or maybe I'm looking at it crosseyed,
but
> it
> > seems this simple to me
> >
> >
> > "Cisco_Newbie" <Cisco_Newbie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:b5nd3f$co0$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > > We're trying to keep server to server, or server to NAS device traffic
> just
> > > between those devices and away from the switches that client
> workstations[colo
r=darkred]
> > > use to communicate between each other.
> > >
> > > For example, we might want to do a database archive from one CRM[/color]
server
> to

> > > the NAS device, but wouldn't want that traffic hitting the same
switches
> as

> > > users trying to log in to a DC or access company data on a file
server. [colo
r=darkred]
> > >
> > > "Bigmaggot" <bigmaggotnews@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:b5n1k1$gqn$1$8300dec7@new
s.demon.co.uk...
> > > > I wouldn't bother, you won't gain anything! What are you trying to
> > > achieve?
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Cisco_Newbie" <Cisco_Newbie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:b5l3ap$8gg$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > > > > Hi All
> > > > >
> > > > > Any advice appreciated on the following:
> > > > >
> > > > > We have a completely internal AD and AD integrated DNS domain,[/color]
with
> 2
> > > DC's
> > > > > and one member server plus around 30 clients all on a Cat5e
switched
> > > > network
> > > > > (take it that there is currently no internet connectivity, and OS
is
> W2K
> > > > > Advanced Server)
> > > > >
> > > > > Would like to enable the servers to communicate amongst themselves
> for
> > > > > replication, etc. on a separate backbone, but also give each a
> direct
> > > way
> > > > to
> > > > > communicate with the rest of the network. Hence, we're looking at
> > > > > multi-homing all of the servers, one NIC being attached to a
> standalone
> > > Cu
> > > > > switch (a device we have 'spare' at the moment) with the rest of
the[c
olor=darkred]
> > > > servers
> > > > > (plus a NAS device), and the other NIC being attached to the[/color]
network
> as

> > > a
> > > > > whole through switches in place at present.
> > > > >
> > > > > What's the best way to configure routing and DNS so that each
server
> > > > > communicates on one specific NIC for server connections, and the
> other
> > > NIC
> > > > > for user connections?
> > > > >
> > > > > TIA
> > > > >
> > > > > (please reply to the group, email address is spam filtered)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Report this post to a moderator

I hate to display my ignorance, but this question has been
puzzling the hell out of me. I mean, what's the problem? Isn't
this what bridges are for? And to quote a several year old Cisco
doc on switches "A switch is a bridge." In other words, switches
will bridge. ??? I don't see any problem -what am I missing
here? A flooded NIC? A swamped server? If the switches won't
bridge for some reason, get a bridge.

Mike

"Cisco_Newbie" <Cisco_Newbie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:b5l3ap$8gg$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Hi All
>
> Any advice appreciated on the following:
>
> We have a completely internal AD and AD integrated DNS domain,
with 2 DC's
> and one member server plus around 30 clients all on a Cat5e
switched network
> (take it that there is currently no internet connectivity, and
OS is W2K
> Advanced Server)
>
> Would like to enable the servers to communicate amongst
themselves for
> replication, etc. on a separate backbone, but also give each a
direct way to
> communicate with the rest of the network. Hence, we're looking
at
> multi-homing all of the servers, one NIC being attached to a
standalone Cu
> switch (a device we have 'spare' at the moment) with the rest of
the servers
> (plus a NAS device), and the other NIC being attached to the
network as a
> whole through switches in place at present.
>
> What's the best way to configure routing and DNS so that each
server
> communicates on one specific NIC for server connections, and the
other NIC
> for user connections?
>
> TIA
>
> (please reply to the group, email address is spam filtered)
>
>

Report this post to a moderator

presume the reason is we are discussing a switch operating at layer 3,
between two Vlans
In this case the switch would operate like a router between the Vlans.



"MF" <wallacestevens54@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Pw2dndbUQPmgNhmjXTWcoQ@co
mcast.com...
> I hate to display my ignorance, but this question has been
> puzzling the hell out of me. I mean, what's the problem? Isn't
> this what bridges are for? And to quote a several year old Cisco
> doc on switches "A switch is a bridge." In other words, switches
> will bridge. ??? I don't see any problem -what am I missing
> here? A flooded NIC? A swamped server? If the switches won't
> bridge for some reason, get a bridge.
>
> Mike
>
> "Cisco_Newbie" <Cisco_Newbie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:b5l3ap$8gg$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > Hi All
> >
> > Any advice appreciated on the following:
> >
> > We have a completely internal AD and AD integrated DNS domain,
> with 2 DC's
> > and one member server plus around 30 clients all on a Cat5e
> switched network
> > (take it that there is currently no internet connectivity, and
> OS is W2K
> > Advanced Server)
> >
> > Would like to enable the servers to communicate amongst
> themselves for
> > replication, etc. on a separate backbone, but also give each a
> direct way to
> > communicate with the rest of the network. Hence, we're looking
> at
> > multi-homing all of the servers, one NIC being attached to a
> standalone Cu
> > switch (a device we have 'spare' at the moment) with the rest of
> the servers
> > (plus a NAS device), and the other NIC being attached to the
> network as a
> > whole through switches in place at present.
> >
> > What's the best way to configure routing and DNS so that each
> server
> > communicates on one specific NIC for server connections, and the
> other NIC
> > for user connections?
> >
> > TIA
> >
> > (please reply to the group, email address is spam filtered)
> >
> >
>
>

Report this post to a moderator

Thanks for your input, but I think you might have got the wrong end of the
stick.

At the risk of repetition ad nauseum, the problem is concerning the
isolation of different streams of traffic on the network, so that heavy
server traffic doesn't negatively affect the user network, or users access
to another server.

This is the preserve of routing, VLANS, high throughput switch fabric, etc.
Bridges are used to interconnect LANs using one (or more) of the IEEE 802
standards. At present, the network described is just one subnet - we are
seeking to divide it! Please read earlier posts on using the spare Cu
switch as a collapsed backbone for the servers and NAS, cascades, etc.
Current configuration is fully switched Cat5e.

The question is really in relation to routing and DNS implementation.

Andy...if you're reading this, will write a decent reply soon - still
discussing some points.

"MF" <wallacestevens54@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Pw2dndbUQPmgNhmjXTWcoQ@co
mcast.com...
> I hate to display my ignorance, but this question has been
> puzzling the hell out of me. I mean, what's the problem? Isn't
> this what bridges are for? And to quote a several year old Cisco
> doc on switches "A switch is a bridge." In other words, switches
> will bridge. ??? I don't see any problem -what am I missing
> here? A flooded NIC? A swamped server? If the switches won't
> bridge for some reason, get a bridge.
>
> Mike
>
> "Cisco_Newbie" <Cisco_Newbie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:b5l3ap$8gg$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > Hi All
> >
> > Any advice appreciated on the following:
> >
> > We have a completely internal AD and AD integrated DNS domain,
> with 2 DC's
> > and one member server plus around 30 clients all on a Cat5e
> switched network
> > (take it that there is currently no internet connectivity, and
> OS is W2K
> > Advanced Server)
> >
> > Would like to enable the servers to communicate amongst
> themselves for
> > replication, etc. on a separate backbone, but also give each a
> direct way to
> > communicate with the rest of the network. Hence, we're looking
> at
> > multi-homing all of the servers, one NIC being attached to a
> standalone Cu
> > switch (a device we have 'spare' at the moment) with the rest of
> the servers
> > (plus a NAS device), and the other NIC being attached to the
> network as a
> > whole through switches in place at present.
> >
> > What's the best way to configure routing and DNS so that each
> server
> > communicates on one specific NIC for server connections, and the
> other NIC
> > for user connections?
> >
> > TIA
> >
> > (please reply to the group, email address is spam filtered)
> >
> >
>
>

Report this post to a moderator