Re: Multihomed server
From: Mike Lowery (selfspam_at_mouse-potato.com)
Date: 02/04/05
- Next message: Andy: "Re: Connecting two Server 2003 Forests - insights gratefully received."
- Previous message: Mike Lowery: "Re: Multihomed server"
- In reply to: Phillip Windell: "Re: Multihomed server"
- Next in thread: Phillip Windell: "Re: Multihomed server"
- Reply: Phillip Windell: "Re: Multihomed server"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:51:13 -0800
"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:%23HkPTltCFHA.2380@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "Mike Lowery" <selfspam@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> news:u8V8$kiCFHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > These NICs aren't on the same subnet, they're on different networks. Both
> > computers are on both networks. Windows knows this and its NetBIOS name
> list
> > shows two IPs for each computer. It seems to arbitrarily pick which IP
> (or NIC)
> > to use.
>
> 157025 - Default Gateway Configuration for Multihomed Computers
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;157025&Product=win2000
>
> 272294 - Active Directory Communication Fails on Multihomed Domain
> Controllers
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;272294
>
> 191611 - Symptoms of Multihomed Browsers
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;191611
>
> Microsoft Windows XP - Multihoming Considerations
>
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/reskit/en-us/prcc_tcp_qpzj.asp?
>
> Multi-Homed machine can have only one Default Gateway. As far as I am
> concerned it is simply an oversight in the design of GUI that allows you to
> assign a Default Gateway to an interface when one other interface already
> has one. At least with Server2003 it does warn you not to do this if you
> attempt it, but it doesn't prevent you from doing it.
It's not a DG issue. These two machines are on the same subnets and thus
require no gateway. Aside from that, only one DG is currently defined.
> Inbound vs outbound are two different independent sessions and two
> completely differnet instances of a "routing decision" being made. When the
> software sends something out it simply dumps it on the TCP stack and leaves
> it. The routing subsystem then decides what route to take based on the
> destination and whatever route table entry correspondes to that. It is
> perfectly normal (and expected) that a request for a resource can come in on
> one interface and have the respose to the request go out a different
> interface.
>
> This is why any machine (server or not a server) should never be multihomed
> unless it is the right reason for doing so and although I don't fully
> understand why to did it, I suspect it is not the right reason. The proper
> "good" reasons are when building a machine as a router or a NAT device.
> Another reason is Nic-Teaming, but that requires special Nics. One other
> reason would be to have a separate segment for a Tape Backup Device.
Without getting into complete details of our network design, it's the right
reason. We have a "management LAN" that all machines must be connected to, and
we have a "private LAN" that is to be used for a high-traffic connection between
devices. We don't want this traffic on the management LAN. But since both
computers are on both LANs, they can see each other using either NIC.
- Next message: Andy: "Re: Connecting two Server 2003 Forests - insights gratefully received."
- Previous message: Mike Lowery: "Re: Multihomed server"
- In reply to: Phillip Windell: "Re: Multihomed server"
- Next in thread: Phillip Windell: "Re: Multihomed server"
- Reply: Phillip Windell: "Re: Multihomed server"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
