DC, RRAS and Multiple NIC's

We currently have two sites connected together by dedicated Firewall/VPN
appliances routing traffic between two separate subnets with one DC/DNS
Server on either side. These Firewall/VPN Devices are being replaced by a
Private Network Connection, but in the process of putting this connection in
place, we've found that it is only capable of Layer 2 Bridging, and that no
Modem/Router (including Cisco's) are capable of running the private
connection in routed mode without continual dropouts or latency issues. As
we have not planned for this, we are trying to find a solution to keep the
two subnets separate rather than merge the two and deal with managing a flat
topology network across a 512K link. We are planning on doing the following:

- Run Layer 2 Bridging on Modem/Router from Site A (Location of DC/DNS/PDC
Emulator) to Modem/Router at Site B
- Install 2 NIC's in DC/DNS Server at Site B
- Connect Modem/Router at Site B to second NIC in Site B DC, effectively
making the Site B DC appear on the Site A Subnet
- Install RRAS on Site B DC and route traffic at Site B across to Site A

My main concerns for doing this are these:

- How will this affect the Domain Controller at Site B by appearing on both
Subnets at the same time?
- Can the IP Address of the Second NIC on the DC at Site B
- Can we disable Client for Microsoft Networks and File/Print Sharing on the
NIC connected to the Bridge at Site B to avoid any duplicate name issues?

I realise this seems an overly complex fix, but it's cheaper than putting a
Cisco 831 at Site B.

Yes, you can setup site to site VPN if the modem or router is PPTP pass
through. However, it is not recommended to setup VPN on DC. quoted from
http://www.ChicagoTech.net
Connection issues on DC, ISA, DNS and WINS server as VPN server

Symptom: You have a Windows 2000/2003 server is configured as VPN running
DNS, WINS, you may experience some connection issues. 1) the internal
computers can't ping the server by name; 2) if the server is a DC and Master
Browser, you may have a computer browsing issue; 3) you may receive Event
ID: 4319 - A duplicate name has been detected on the tcp network; 4) You may
receive error messages like "No Logon Servers Available to Service your
Logon Request" when you try to open file shares or map network drives to the
Routing and Remote Access server; 5) if the server is also a DC, you may not
be able to logon the domain; 6) if the server is also running ISA, you
cannot browse the Web from client computers on the local network, regardless
of whether the computers are configured to use Web Proxy or the Microsoft
Firewall Client. For example, "The page cannot be displayed" may appear in
the Web browser with a "cannot find server or DNS" error message.

Cause: When a VPN client connects to the VPN server, the server creates a
PPP adapter to communicate with the remote computer. The server may then
register the IP address of this PPP adapter in the DNS or the WINS database.
When the internal computers try to connect to the IP address of the PPP
adapter, them cannot reach the PPP adapter, then the connections fail.

--
For more and other information, go to http://www.ChicagoTech.net

Don't send e-mail or reply to me except you need consulting services.
Posting on MS newsgroup will benefit all readers and you may get more help.

Bob Lin, MS-MVP, MCSE & CNE
Networking, Internet, Routing, VPN, Anti-Virus, Tips & Troubleshooting on
http://www.ChicagoTech.net
Networking Solutions, http://www.chicagotech.net/networksolutions.htm
VPN Solutions, http://www.chicagotech.net/vpnsolutions.htm
VPN Process and Error Analysis, http://www.chicagotech.net/VPN%20process.htm
VPN Troubleshooting, http://www.chicagotech.net/vpn.htm
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties.
"Brad Bazley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> We currently have two sites connected together by dedicated Firewall/VPN
> appliances routing traffic between two separate subnets with one DC/DNS
> Server on either side. These Firewall/VPN Devices are being replaced by a
> Private Network Connection, but in the process of putting this connection
> in place, we've found that it is only capable of Layer 2 Bridging, and
> that no Modem/Router (including Cisco's) are capable of running the
> private connection in routed mode without continual dropouts or latency
> issues. As we have not planned for this, we are trying to find a solution
> to keep the two subnets separate rather than merge the two and deal with
> managing a flat topology network across a 512K link. We are planning on
> doing the following:
>
> - Run Layer 2 Bridging on Modem/Router from Site A (Location of DC/DNS/PDC
> Emulator) to Modem/Router at Site B
> - Install 2 NIC's in DC/DNS Server at Site B
> - Connect Modem/Router at Site B to second NIC in Site B DC, effectively
> making the Site B DC appear on the Site A Subnet
> - Install RRAS on Site B DC and route traffic at Site B across to Site A
>
> My main concerns for doing this are these:
>
> - How will this affect the Domain Controller at Site B by appearing on
> both Subnets at the same time?
> - Can the IP Address of the Second NIC on the DC at Site B
> - Can we disable Client for Microsoft Networks and File/Print Sharing on
> the NIC connected to the Bridge at Site B to avoid any duplicate name
> issues?
>
> I realise this seems an overly complex fix, but it's cheaper than putting
> a Cisco 831 at Site B.
>

"Brad Bazley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> We currently have two sites connected together by dedicated Firewall/VPN
> appliances routing traffic between two separate subnets with one DC/DNS
> Server on either side. These Firewall/VPN Devices are being replaced by a
> Private Network Connection, but in the process of putting this connection
in
> place, we've found that it is only capable of Layer 2 Bridging, and that
no
> Modem/Router (including Cisco's) are capable of running the private

Make this new line an entirely new subnet,...there *has* to be a way to do
that, don't let them tell you they can't.

I am assuming that this new line will come with some kind of device at each
end to do this "bridging",...it better,..if not scream, holler, whine, and
cry till it does. Take an old Windows machine, it can be even an old NT4
Workstation box, and set it up as a router with two NICs and place it
physically between your LAN and these new bridging devices. The routers
internal interface will remain the same as your LAN, the external interface
will be whatever fits with the new subnet of this new line. Enable
"routing" on the Windows box and you are in business. Remember that in NT4
routing was called "IP Forwarding" and is just simple checkbox in the NIC's
tcp/ip properties. Also remember that there is *no* NAT taking place
anymore, it is now an "all private" setup so you are only dealing with
normal Layer3 routing now.

"Rinse & Repeat" the design at each end of the new line.

Later, when you have the funds, you can replace the windows boxes with a
"real" router. To be honest an older Cisco 2600 series with two ethernet
ports that you can probably get cheap on E-Bay would work perfectly fine.
All it takes is two Ethernet ports, even 10mbps would do fine since that is
still faster than the WAN link is runing.

Doing it this way is cheap, simple, and in no way effects your Domain
Controller and Site arrangements. All your LAN's Domain/Site equipment will
be "none-the-wiser" and it will be transparent to them.

--

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

Hey - thanks for the quick response.

Yes, they do supply Modem Routers, but unfortunately the current firmware
they have causes bad packet loss when they're in routed mode instead of
bridge mode - even with the Cisco 837's, they get the same problem. This
hasn't always been the case - older D-Links worked fine in Routed Mode, but
D-Link have changed their Router line and it no longer works with this
product. Why Cisco doesn't work any more though is anybody's guess - but
that's beside the point.

In regards to Site B - it already is an entirely new and unique subnet,
we're trying to avoid merging the two sites into the one subnet - is this
what you're talking about, or have I missed the point?

We will have an old box at the other side that can be redeployed, and it
does have two NIC's - I just hate having heaps of Windows Boxes sitting
around doing tasks that dedicated Hardware appliances do better, and I was
hoping that I could get away with piggy-backing this task on to their
current DC.

Again, thanks so much for your help and suggestions!

"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Brad Bazley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> We currently have two sites connected together by dedicated Firewall/VPN
>> appliances routing traffic between two separate subnets with one DC/DNS
>> Server on either side. These Firewall/VPN Devices are being replaced by a
>> Private Network Connection, but in the process of putting this connection
> in
>> place, we've found that it is only capable of Layer 2 Bridging, and that
> no
>> Modem/Router (including Cisco's) are capable of running the private
>
> Make this new line an entirely new subnet,...there *has* to be a way to do
> that, don't let them tell you they can't.
>
> I am assuming that this new line will come with some kind of device at
> each
> end to do this "bridging",...it better,..if not scream, holler, whine, and
> cry till it does. Take an old Windows machine, it can be even an old NT4
> Workstation box, and set it up as a router with two NICs and place it
> physically between your LAN and these new bridging devices. The routers
> internal interface will remain the same as your LAN, the external
> interface
> will be whatever fits with the new subnet of this new line. Enable
> "routing" on the Windows box and you are in business. Remember that in NT4
> routing was called "IP Forwarding" and is just simple checkbox in the
> NIC's
> tcp/ip properties. Also remember that there is *no* NAT taking place
> anymore, it is now an "all private" setup so you are only dealing with
> normal Layer3 routing now.
>
> "Rinse & Repeat" the design at each end of the new line.
>
> Later, when you have the funds, you can replace the windows boxes with a
> "real" router. To be honest an older Cisco 2600 series with two ethernet
> ports that you can probably get cheap on E-Bay would work perfectly fine.
> All it takes is two Ethernet ports, even 10mbps would do fine since that
> is
> still faster than the WAN link is runing.
>
> Doing it this way is cheap, simple, and in no way effects your Domain
> Controller and Site arrangements. All your LAN's Domain/Site equipment
> will
> be "none-the-wiser" and it will be transparent to them.
>
> --
>
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com
>
>

"Brad Bazley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Yes, they do supply Modem Routers, but unfortunately the current firmware
> they have causes bad packet loss when they're in routed mode instead of
> bridge mode

Right, so leave them in bridge mode. I am suggesting you build a cheap
router out of an old NT4 workstation box (or whatever else you might have
laying around) and place it between these "bridging devices" and your LAN.
When you get the funds, replace it with something better,...like a used
Cisco 2600 Series from E-Bay or something.

> In regards to Site B - it already is an entirely new and unique subnet,
> we're trying to avoid merging the two sites into the one subnet - is this
> what you're talking about, or have I missed the point?

Kinda missed it I guess. With 2 sites you would end up with 3 subnets or
networks. Each Site would be one and the WAN link would be another one all
by itself. The two bridging devices would have thier own subnet that is
different from either site. It may be possible to use two subnets with only
one router at one end, but I would rather see you keep a distinction between
this WAN link and any Sites for "future" reasons because you may not have
this type of link forever and you want to maintain flexability that I think
would be better served this way.

Bridging *only* means that both the interfaces on each device is the same
subnet as opposed to a router where they are different,...it does not
dictate what the subnet must be,..so the WAN link with the two bridge
devices should be able to run whatever subnet you guys want to assign to it.
It is the "cheap router" at each end that makes the jump from one subnet to
the next.

[Site1]--[cheap router]--[bridge]--WAN link--[bridge]--[cheap
router]--[Site2]
|---Subnet 1---|------------------Subnet 3 ---------------------|---Subnet
2---|

Example subnet scheme:
Site one: 192.168.1.x
WAN link: 10.0.1.x
Site two: 192.168.5.x

The "cheap routers" would have one interface matching the WAN link and one
interface match their respective Site's network and would serve as the
official "gateway" for there respective Site. The Bridge Devices would
essentially be "invisible" to the system, that is the nature of Bridging
Devices, they are invisible, they follow the pattern of a common Switch
which is also technically a "bridge", actually a "multi-port bridge" to be
exact.

This method will have no effect on the rest of your internal LAN or the DCs
that control it,...everything will just be business as usual.

> does have two NIC's - I just hate having heaps of Windows Boxes sitting
> around doing tasks that dedicated Hardware appliances do better, and I was
> hoping that I could get away with piggy-backing this task on to their
> current DC.

"Heaps of boxes" is better than "heaps of problems". Never multi-home a DC
(except SBS) and never use one as a router.

272294 - Active Directory Communication Fails on Multihomed Domain
Controllers
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;272294

191611 - Symptoms of Multihomed Browsers
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;191611

--

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

"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

Stinking line wrap!.....
Let me try to make this look better.

[Site1]--[router]--[bridge]--WAN link--[bridge]--[router]--[Site2]
|--Subnet 1--|-------------Subnet 3 -----------------|--Subnet 2--|

--

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

I have made a visual representation of how I would try to do this. I
implemented a setup like this once before and had no troubles. Though the
"bridge" was a dry dsl link which is a bit different from what you are going
to be using but I would imagine it will work the same.

http://bluehat.mystarband.net/net1.png

I would definately recommend disabling file and printer sharing on the Site
to Site link if you will not be doing any file and printer sharing between
sites. I'm not sure but I would imagine that there would be no harm in
disabling the client for microsoft networks as well. I realize that you
aren't using a Cable or DSL link in between sites but it was easier to draw
that way.

Best of luck
Alan

"Brad Bazley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> We currently have two sites connected together by dedicated Firewall/VPN
> appliances routing traffic between two separate subnets with one DC/DNS
> Server on either side. These Firewall/VPN Devices are being replaced by a
> Private Network Connection, but in the process of putting this connection
> in place, we've found that it is only capable of Layer 2 Bridging, and
> that no Modem/Router (including Cisco's) are capable of running the
> private connection in routed mode without continual dropouts or latency
> issues. As we have not planned for this, we are trying to find a solution
> to keep the two subnets separate rather than merge the two and deal with
> managing a flat topology network across a 512K link. We are planning on
> doing the following:
>
> - Run Layer 2 Bridging on Modem/Router from Site A (Location of DC/DNS/PDC
> Emulator) to Modem/Router at Site B
> - Install 2 NIC's in DC/DNS Server at Site B
> - Connect Modem/Router at Site B to second NIC in Site B DC, effectively
> making the Site B DC appear on the Site A Subnet
> - Install RRAS on Site B DC and route traffic at Site B across to Site A
>
> My main concerns for doing this are these:
>
> - How will this affect the Domain Controller at Site B by appearing on
> both Subnets at the same time?
> - Can the IP Address of the Second NIC on the DC at Site B
> - Can we disable Client for Microsoft Networks and File/Print Sharing on
> the NIC connected to the Bridge at Site B to avoid any duplicate name
> issues?
>
> I realise this seems an overly complex fix, but it's cheaper than putting
> a Cisco 831 at Site B.
>

I'm gonna have to install a new Visio or something. I like the idea of being
able to whip out a diagram like that.

On your Net2 diagram, if you delete out the "Internet Cloud", the R1 router
and accompanying switch,...leaving essentially a straight line between AR1
and DR1 via the two bridge devices...., you would have just what I was
trying to describe. The AR1 and DR1 router in your diagram correspond to
what I lovingly called "cheap router" in my explaination. The AM1 and BM1
would correcspond to his "bridging devices" as I called them. Since he is
using a private link there effectively is no "Internet" in the model.

Did you use Visio? What version?

--

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


"Alan D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> If Site A and Site B do not need to "directly" communicate with one
another,
> the following is also a viable option.
>
> http://bluehat.mystarband.net/net2.png
>
> I don't think it would work if you wanted to have shared folder and/or
> printers accessible from site to site though. For that you need to use a
> higher end router or a machine serving as a router.
>
> "Alan D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:eMZF$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >I have made a visual representation of how I would try to do this. I
> >implemented a setup like this once before and had no troubles. Though
the
> >"bridge" was a dry dsl link which is a bit different from what you are
> >going to be using but I would imagine it will work the same.
> >
> > http://bluehat.mystarband.net/net1.png
> >
> > I would definately recommend disabling file and printer sharing on the
> > Site to Site link if you will not be doing any file and printer sharing
> > between sites. I'm not sure but I would imagine that there would be no
> > harm in disabling the client for microsoft networks as well. I realize
> > that you aren't using a Cable or DSL link in between sites but it was
> > easier to draw that way.
> >
> > Best of luck
> > Alan
> >
> > "Brad Bazley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> We currently have two sites connected together by dedicated
Firewall/VPN
> >> appliances routing traffic between two separate subnets with one DC/DNS
> >> Server on either side. These Firewall/VPN Devices are being replaced by
a
> >> Private Network Connection, but in the process of putting this
connection
> >> in place, we've found that it is only capable of Layer 2 Bridging, and
> >> that no Modem/Router (including Cisco's) are capable of running the
> >> private connection in routed mode without continual dropouts or latency
> >> issues. As we have not planned for this, we are trying to find a
solution
> >> to keep the two subnets separate rather than merge the two and deal
with
> >> managing a flat topology network across a 512K link. We are planning on
> >> doing the following:
> >>
> >> - Run Layer 2 Bridging on Modem/Router from Site A (Location of
> >> DC/DNS/PDC Emulator) to Modem/Router at Site B
> >> - Install 2 NIC's in DC/DNS Server at Site B
> >> - Connect Modem/Router at Site B to second NIC in Site B DC,
effectively
> >> making the Site B DC appear on the Site A Subnet
> >> - Install RRAS on Site B DC and route traffic at Site B across to Site
A
> >>
> >> My main concerns for doing this are these:
> >>
> >> - How will this affect the Domain Controller at Site B by appearing on
> >> both Subnets at the same time?
> >> - Can the IP Address of the Second NIC on the DC at Site B
> >> - Can we disable Client for Microsoft Networks and File/Print Sharing
on
> >> the NIC connected to the Bridge at Site B to avoid any duplicate name
> >> issues?
> >>
> >> I realise this seems an overly complex fix, but it's cheaper than
putting
> >> a Cisco 831 at Site B.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

If Site A and Site B do not need to "directly" communicate with one another,
the following is also a viable option.

http://bluehat.mystarband.net/net2.png

I don't think it would work if you wanted to have shared folder and/or
printers accessible from site to site though. For that you need to use a
higher end router or a machine serving as a router.

"Alan D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:eMZF$(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have made a visual representation of how I would try to do this. I
>implemented a setup like this once before and had no troubles. Though the
>"bridge" was a dry dsl link which is a bit different from what you are
>going to be using but I would imagine it will work the same.
>
> http://bluehat.mystarband.net/net1.png
>
> I would definately recommend disabling file and printer sharing on the
> Site to Site link if you will not be doing any file and printer sharing
> between sites. I'm not sure but I would imagine that there would be no
> harm in disabling the client for microsoft networks as well. I realize
> that you aren't using a Cable or DSL link in between sites but it was
> easier to draw that way.
>
> Best of luck
> Alan
>
> "Brad Bazley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> We currently have two sites connected together by dedicated Firewall/VPN
>> appliances routing traffic between two separate subnets with one DC/DNS
>> Server on either side. These Firewall/VPN Devices are being replaced by a
>> Private Network Connection, but in the process of putting this connection
>> in place, we've found that it is only capable of Layer 2 Bridging, and
>> that no Modem/Router (including Cisco's) are capable of running the
>> private connection in routed mode without continual dropouts or latency
>> issues. As we have not planned for this, we are trying to find a solution
>> to keep the two subnets separate rather than merge the two and deal with
>> managing a flat topology network across a 512K link. We are planning on
>> doing the following:
>>
>> - Run Layer 2 Bridging on Modem/Router from Site A (Location of
>> DC/DNS/PDC Emulator) to Modem/Router at Site B
>> - Install 2 NIC's in DC/DNS Server at Site B
>> - Connect Modem/Router at Site B to second NIC in Site B DC, effectively
>> making the Site B DC appear on the Site A Subnet
>> - Install RRAS on Site B DC and route traffic at Site B across to Site A
>>
>> My main concerns for doing this are these:
>>
>> - How will this affect the Domain Controller at Site B by appearing on
>> both Subnets at the same time?
>> - Can the IP Address of the Second NIC on the DC at Site B
>> - Can we disable Client for Microsoft Networks and File/Print Sharing on
>> the NIC connected to the Bridge at Site B to avoid any duplicate name
>> issues?
>>
>> I realise this seems an overly complex fix, but it's cheaper than putting
>> a Cisco 831 at Site B.
>>
>
>

Actually, good old microsoft paint. Having the "key" in the lower left
makes it so simple it's unbelievable. Copy and paste the componants as you
need them.

http://bluehat.mystarband.net/inprogress.png

When drawing "connections" use the "line" tool and hold the shift key (this
makes the line perfectly straight).



I have used visio as well as other "visio like" programs and I have found
that I am able to create diagrams much faster with paint, especially if I
have a set of commonly used componants available for quick copy and pasting.
Also using paint helps ensure that no one else's diagram will look exactly
like mine.

Alan

"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:Om%(E-Mail Removed)...
> I'm gonna have to install a new Visio or something. I like the idea of
> being
> able to whip out a diagram like that.
>
> On your Net2 diagram, if you delete out the "Internet Cloud", the R1
> router
> and accompanying switch,...leaving essentially a straight line between AR1
> and DR1 via the two bridge devices...., you would have just what I was
> trying to describe. The AR1 and DR1 router in your diagram correspond to
> what I lovingly called "cheap router" in my explaination. The AM1 and BM1
> would correcspond to his "bridging devices" as I called them. Since he is
> using a private link there effectively is no "Internet" in the model.
>
> Did you use Visio? What version?
>
> --
>
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com
>
>
> "Alan D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> If Site A and Site B do not need to "directly" communicate with one
> another,
>> the following is also a viable option.
>>
>> http://bluehat.mystarband.net/net2.png
>>
>> I don't think it would work if you wanted to have shared folder and/or
>> printers accessible from site to site though. For that you need to use a
>> higher end router or a machine serving as a router.
>>
>> "Alan D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:eMZF$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >I have made a visual representation of how I would try to do this. I
>> >implemented a setup like this once before and had no troubles. Though
> the
>> >"bridge" was a dry dsl link which is a bit different from what you are
>> >going to be using but I would imagine it will work the same.
>> >
>> > http://bluehat.mystarband.net/net1.png
>> >
>> > I would definately recommend disabling file and printer sharing on the
>> > Site to Site link if you will not be doing any file and printer sharing
>> > between sites. I'm not sure but I would imagine that there would be no
>> > harm in disabling the client for microsoft networks as well. I realize
>> > that you aren't using a Cable or DSL link in between sites but it was
>> > easier to draw that way.
>> >
>> > Best of luck
>> > Alan
>> >
>> > "Brad Bazley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> > news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >> We currently have two sites connected together by dedicated
> Firewall/VPN
>> >> appliances routing traffic between two separate subnets with one
>> >> DC/DNS
>> >> Server on either side. These Firewall/VPN Devices are being replaced
>> >> by
> a
>> >> Private Network Connection, but in the process of putting this
> connection
>> >> in place, we've found that it is only capable of Layer 2 Bridging, and
>> >> that no Modem/Router (including Cisco's) are capable of running the
>> >> private connection in routed mode without continual dropouts or
>> >> latency
>> >> issues. As we have not planned for this, we are trying to find a
> solution
>> >> to keep the two subnets separate rather than merge the two and deal
> with
>> >> managing a flat topology network across a 512K link. We are planning
>> >> on
>> >> doing the following:
>> >>
>> >> - Run Layer 2 Bridging on Modem/Router from Site A (Location of
>> >> DC/DNS/PDC Emulator) to Modem/Router at Site B
>> >> - Install 2 NIC's in DC/DNS Server at Site B
>> >> - Connect Modem/Router at Site B to second NIC in Site B DC,
> effectively
>> >> making the Site B DC appear on the Site A Subnet
>> >> - Install RRAS on Site B DC and route traffic at Site B across to Site
> A
>> >>
>> >> My main concerns for doing this are these:
>> >>
>> >> - How will this affect the Domain Controller at Site B by appearing on
>> >> both Subnets at the same time?
>> >> - Can the IP Address of the Second NIC on the DC at Site B
>> >> - Can we disable Client for Microsoft Networks and File/Print Sharing
> on
>> >> the NIC connected to the Bridge at Site B to avoid any duplicate name
>> >> issues?
>> >>
>> >> I realise this seems an overly complex fix, but it's cheaper than
> putting
>> >> a Cisco 831 at Site B.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>