Re: network tool for subnet question
- From: Tcs <TSmithATEastPointCityDOTorg@>
- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:23:01 -0400
Okay. I *said* "clases", because the first octet is different.
I've since found out that the routers at the remotes sites are still being used.
And it is *they* that handle the DHCP locally. On this end, the PIX handles
routing. (This is straight from the network guy who set it up and maintains
it.)
Another problem adding to the mix is that we're changing domains. We changed
email systems last winter, going from Lotus Notes to Exchange 2003. At the same
time, we started a domain migration. All users are in the new domain, but
almost all the computers in the old domain have yet to be moved to the new. We
have two domain controllers in the old, as well as the new. Our new Exchange
Server is in the new. My PC, along with perhaps a dozen or so others are in the
new. Thus leaving a couple hundred in the old...
BTW - We're in the middle of getting a new phone system. We're rather "spread
out" within our city, and we have a hodge podge of telephone systems in place.
It's my understanding that the new phone system, if acquired as envisioned, will
provide a T1 link to each location. And since it will be VoIP, we'll be able to
solve our network [performance] issues/problem(s) as well. Then we can get
things set up "right". Routers that "route", *one* DHCP server, etc.
When I try to ping the computer name, I get:
Ping request could not find the host <CompName>. Please check the name and try
again.
This is what I get when I try to ping the several computers I can see in the new
domain, but are at the remote sites. Anything here, I can successfully ping.
Is there no way I can ping a remote? Until we get our new T1s in place?
Thanks a lot,
Tom
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:43:14 -0500, "Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote:
>"Tcs" <TSmithATEastPointCityDOTorg@> wrote in message
>news:1hr5j1l4vk5ar9vs3m78nkup839stcoge8@xxxxxxxxxx
>> We have several remote sites on our network. While we have had a problem
>wit
>> the way the network was originally set up (all routers bridging vs
>routing), at
>> least our subnets were in the same class. (We were using Frame Relay.)
>We've
>> been changing remote sites over to DSL, to get better performance.
>
>Forget "classes",... for practical purposes just consider that there is no
>such thing. There are Subnets,....something is either in the same subnet or
>it is not. If all your Routers were previously all "bridging" then there
>was only one Subnet,...just one. Bridging occurs only within a
>subnet,...Routing occurs only between different subnets.
>
>> office, to get the IP address of his machine. So we could help him. So I
>got
>> to wondering... (*usually* a dangerous proposition at best.) I was
>wondering
>> why there wasn't somewhere we could go, to see if *we* couldn't find the
>IPs. I
>> was thinking of the DHCP server (from my admin days), but this is
>*probably*
>> wrong. Anyway, it didn't show what I thought it would.
>
>Just ping the machine name,...it will return the IP#. It will also be
>listed in DHCP if it was granted by DHCP,..it will also be listed in DNS and
>WINS.
>
>> Then I was told that because we're using DSL, we have to use use
>> 192.xxx.xxx.xxx. And of course this does *not* match our class. I guess
>the
>> DSL modems/routers are handling DHCP at the site. (I'm not the network
>guy
>
>DSL is just a Line Technology and operates at Layers 1 & 2. It has nothing
>to do with IP#s.
>
>You didn't have a "class",...you had an IP Range. Since I don't know what
>that was or if you used Publicly Routable Addresses or RFC Private
>Non-Routable Address from behind a NAT or Proxy Device there is no way I can
>tell you what to do from there.
>
>If you used RFC Private Addressing,....then you keep what you have as long
>as you don't buy some piece of crap "home user" DSL NAT Device. You need
>high quality commercial equipment. A DSL modem combined with a Hardware
>Firewall, or MS ISA Server would serve the purpose. Note that a DSL Modem
>does not have an IP# and does not deal with IP numbers in any way,...it is
>nothing more than a glorified Media Converter (Tranceiver) between the Phone
>Line and the CAT5 cabling. Many so-called DSL Modems on the market are not
>just simple DSL Modems as they are avertised,...many are NAT Devices but
>they never tell you that when you buy them. You want something with the
>absolute fewest features possible,...the Proxy Server or your Hardware
>Firewall are the devices that do the real work. Your DHCP should be handled
>by a Windows Server running MS DHCP since it will have a 100 times more
>features and abilities and will keep Active Directory updated whenever a
>client's IP# changes.
.
- References:
- network tool for subnet question
- From: Tcs
- network tool for subnet question
- Prev by Date: mandatory user profiles
- Next by Date: Re: Incresing the number of shares in Win2000
- Previous by thread: Re: network tool for subnet question
- Next by thread: Real reason for DHCP superscopes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
