2003 with 2 nics, want nic1 to be able to 'see' internet thru nic2?

I have a win2003 server that is connected with one nic to an ISA Server. The
2003 box can see the internet - and any box connected to the switch this NIC is
connected to can see the internet.

I have a 2nd faster NIC on the box - and want to connect several computers to
that faster NIC for file sharing on the 2003 box - and also allow them to see
the Internet (only visible thru the other NIC).

What do I need to do to set this up? I guess allow the 2 nics to bridge in some
fashion?
--
Thanks in advance, Les Caudle

That is not going to accomplish anything. If you want more LAN bandwidth,
then put faster NICs in all the machines and replace all the switches with
switches that run the same speed as the NIC. You may also have to use higher
quality or a faster Catagory of cable as well. Everything must match and
everything must work together. You are not going to outsmart the system
with some kind of "bridging" scheme.


--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com


"Les Caudle" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I have a win2003 server that is connected with one nic to an ISA Server.
The
> 2003 box can see the internet - and any box connected to the switch this
NIC is
> connected to can see the internet.
>
> I have a 2nd faster NIC on the box - and want to connect several computers
to
> that faster NIC for file sharing on the 2003 box - and also allow them to
see
> the Internet (only visible thru the other NIC).
>
> What do I need to do to set this up? I guess allow the 2 nics to bridge
in some
> fashion?
> --
> Thanks in advance, Les Caudle

Phillip - that is not my intention.

The box is a file server. I want some users to access it thru a 1000 NIC - as
they will have fast 1000 NICs on their boxes.

The other boxes in the network are all 100 speed - they can go on the slow NIC -
and hopefully not take up any bandwidth of the 1000 NIC.

My current thinking is that it would be simpler to just connect the fast switch
to the slow switch to accomplish what I want (the fast boxes would take the most
direct path - I hope - thru the switches - or am I making a bad guess?) - rather
than to bridge thru the 2 NICs as I was initially trying to do.

BTW - The boxes connected to the fast NIC would be transferring very large
Gigabyte files. The slow boxes would be accessing small word and excel docs.

Regards, Les Caudle

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:39:19 -0500, "Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote:

>That is not going to accomplish anything. If you want more LAN bandwidth,
>then put faster NICs in all the machines and replace all the switches with
>switches that run the same speed as the NIC. You may also have to use higher
>quality or a faster Catagory of cable as well. Everything must match and
>everything must work together. You are not going to outsmart the system
>with some kind of "bridging" scheme.

--
Thanks in advance, Les Caudle

Still isn't going to work that way. That is not the way TCP/IP (or
Ethernet)functions. The way to handle this is the have a Switch capable of
Gig speeds on at least one port,... then plug that server into the one Gig
port. The server would only have one Nic and it would be a gigbit Nic.

It is extremely common to over-estimate bandwidth needs,...I've had that
argument even where I work. In many situations you could sneek into a
conpany and replace all their Nics, Switches, & Hubs with older 10mbps units
and they would never know the difference until they physically noticed what
was written on the unit.

Most "slowdowns" are not bandwidth related but are related to fouled up
OS's, poorly written applications, viruses, spyware/adware, and things like
too little RAM.

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com


"Les Caudle" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Phillip - that is not my intention.
>
> The box is a file server. I want some users to access it thru a 1000
NIC - as
> they will have fast 1000 NICs on their boxes.
>
> The other boxes in the network are all 100 speed - they can go on the slow
NIC -
> and hopefully not take up any bandwidth of the 1000 NIC.
>
> My current thinking is that it would be simpler to just connect the fast
switch
> to the slow switch to accomplish what I want (the fast boxes would take
the most
> direct path - I hope - thru the switches - or am I making a bad guess?) -
rather
> than to bridge thru the 2 NICs as I was initially trying to do.
>
> BTW - The boxes connected to the fast NIC would be transferring very large
> Gigabyte files. The slow boxes would be accessing small word and excel
docs.
>
> Regards, Les Caudle
>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:39:19 -0500, "Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote:
>
> >That is not going to accomplish anything. If you want more LAN
bandwidth,
> >then put faster NICs in all the machines and replace all the switches
with
> >switches that run the same speed as the NIC. You may also have to use
higher
> >quality or a faster Catagory of cable as well. Everything must match and
> >everything must work together. You are not going to outsmart the system
> >with some kind of "bridging" scheme.
>
> --
> Thanks in advance, Les Caudle