HELP! Dual (redundant) networks on Windows 2003 Server

Network Gurus,

I have been searching for a solution to these problems for weeks... to no
avail. Please bear with me, it's a long and complex story!

We have an industrial network - 6 win2k3 servers, and 12 or 13 XP nodes.
All nodes are connected with 2 networks - separated physically - through 2
sets of MICE (industrial managed switches). We call one network LAN Alpha,
and the other LAN Beta.
All IP addresses are static, we have no DNS, no WINS, no DHCP - nothing
really! Just IP addresses. The LAN A addresses are 192.1.0.xxx and LAN B
are 192.1.1.xxx. The problem we are having is with our 3rd party software -
an automation/process control package - which talks on both LANs. The
software functions normally when everything is plugged in - if we unplug a
LAN cable or power down a switch, the servers and software switch to using
the other LAN. I'm sure anyone familiar with redundancy knows what I'm on
about.

The problem is this.. when we disconnect LAN Alpha, and then reboot a
machine (any machine) it can't connect properly when it restarts. We
realise this is a problem with the software, and are in deep painful
negotiations for a work around with the manufacturers. However, what I've
noticed with Server 2003, is that the way the LANs work is affected by the
binding order in Advanced Network Connection settings menu. Basically, I
can set LAN A or LAN B as "top priority", but if I kill that network, the
software can't switch to the other LAN immediately because Windows is busy
timing out. This is noticable in Explorer, just browsing the workgroup.

Without wanting to make the question toooo complicated... can we set both
LAN cards to have the same priority?? IE delete the binding order???

All this stuff worked fine in Windows 2000 Server/Professional - but there
is definitely a difference with Server 2003.

ANY thoughts advice or suggestions VERY welcome!!

Thanks.
_____________________________________
A frustrated engineer

I think that's a problem with XP. Something about which NIC becomes active
first. Google or search MS for it. I don't think there's a fix, it's just
the way XP works.


"Grim Reaper" <gdewdneyatsilvertechcouk> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Network Gurus,
>
> I have been searching for a solution to these problems for weeks... to no
> avail. Please bear with me, it's a long and complex story!
>
> We have an industrial network - 6 win2k3 servers, and 12 or 13 XP nodes.
> All nodes are connected with 2 networks - separated physically - through 2
> sets of MICE (industrial managed switches). We call one network LAN
Alpha,
> and the other LAN Beta.
> All IP addresses are static, we have no DNS, no WINS, no DHCP - nothing
> really! Just IP addresses. The LAN A addresses are 192.1.0.xxx and LAN B
> are 192.1.1.xxx. The problem we are having is with our 3rd party
software -
> an automation/process control package - which talks on both LANs. The
> software functions normally when everything is plugged in - if we unplug a
> LAN cable or power down a switch, the servers and software switch to using
> the other LAN. I'm sure anyone familiar with redundancy knows what I'm on
> about.
>
> The problem is this.. when we disconnect LAN Alpha, and then reboot a
> machine (any machine) it can't connect properly when it restarts. We
> realise this is a problem with the software, and are in deep painful
> negotiations for a work around with the manufacturers. However, what I've
> noticed with Server 2003, is that the way the LANs work is affected by the
> binding order in Advanced Network Connection settings menu. Basically, I
> can set LAN A or LAN B as "top priority", but if I kill that network, the
> software can't switch to the other LAN immediately because Windows is busy
> timing out. This is noticable in Explorer, just browsing the workgroup.
>
> Without wanting to make the question toooo complicated... can we set both
> LAN cards to have the same priority?? IE delete the binding order???
>
> All this stuff worked fine in Windows 2000 Server/Professional - but there
> is definitely a difference with Server 2003.
>
> ANY thoughts advice or suggestions VERY welcome!!
>
> Thanks.
> _____________________________________
> A frustrated engineer
>
>

We've been googling for weeks and weeks!!
Looks like we'll just have to go back to BP and tell them their £30m upgrade
is going to be delayed.. :S
________________________________________________
The Grim Reaper

"Neteng" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I think that's a problem with XP. Something about which NIC becomes active
> first. Google or search MS for it. I don't think there's a fix, it's just
> the way XP works.
>
>
> "Grim Reaper" <gdewdneyatsilvertechcouk> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Network Gurus,
>>
>> I have been searching for a solution to these problems for weeks... to no
>> avail. Please bear with me, it's a long and complex story!
>>
>> We have an industrial network - 6 win2k3 servers, and 12 or 13 XP nodes.
>> All nodes are connected with 2 networks - separated physically - through
>> 2
>> sets of MICE (industrial managed switches). We call one network LAN
> Alpha,
>> and the other LAN Beta.
>> All IP addresses are static, we have no DNS, no WINS, no DHCP - nothing
>> really! Just IP addresses. The LAN A addresses are 192.1.0.xxx and LAN
>> B
>> are 192.1.1.xxx. The problem we are having is with our 3rd party
> software -
>> an automation/process control package - which talks on both LANs. The
>> software functions normally when everything is plugged in - if we unplug
>> a
>> LAN cable or power down a switch, the servers and software switch to
>> using
>> the other LAN. I'm sure anyone familiar with redundancy knows what I'm
>> on
>> about.
>>
>> The problem is this.. when we disconnect LAN Alpha, and then reboot a
>> machine (any machine) it can't connect properly when it restarts. We
>> realise this is a problem with the software, and are in deep painful
>> negotiations for a work around with the manufacturers. However, what
>> I've
>> noticed with Server 2003, is that the way the LANs work is affected by
>> the
>> binding order in Advanced Network Connection settings menu. Basically, I
>> can set LAN A or LAN B as "top priority", but if I kill that network, the
>> software can't switch to the other LAN immediately because Windows is
>> busy
>> timing out. This is noticable in Explorer, just browsing the workgroup.
>>
>> Without wanting to make the question toooo complicated... can we set both
>> LAN cards to have the same priority?? IE delete the binding order???
>>
>> All this stuff worked fine in Windows 2000 Server/Professional - but
>> there
>> is definitely a difference with Server 2003.
>>
>> ANY thoughts advice or suggestions VERY welcome!!
>>
>> Thanks.
>> _____________________________________
>> A frustrated engineer
>>
>>
>
>

Why not try Nic Teaming instead. The Nics have to be designed for it and
have the correct drivers for it, but if redundancy is what this is about
then that may be a better solution.

--
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Understanding the ISA 2004 Access Rule Processing
http://www.isaserver.org/articles/IS...cessRules.html

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Guidance
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/t...dance/2004.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/t...dance/2000.asp

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Partners
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/partners/default.asp
-----------------------------------------------------


"Grim Reaper" <gdewdneyatsilvertechcouk> wrote in message
news:O9GQc%(E-Mail Removed)...
> We've been googling for weeks and weeks!!
> Looks like we'll just have to go back to BP and tell them their £30m
upgrade
> is going to be delayed.. :S
> ________________________________________________
> The Grim Reaper
>
> "Neteng" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >I think that's a problem with XP. Something about which NIC becomes
active
> > first. Google or search MS for it. I don't think there's a fix, it's
just
> > the way XP works.
> >
> >
> > "Grim Reaper" <gdewdneyatsilvertechcouk> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Network Gurus,
> >>
> >> I have been searching for a solution to these problems for weeks... to
no
> >> avail. Please bear with me, it's a long and complex story!
> >>
> >> We have an industrial network - 6 win2k3 servers, and 12 or 13 XP
nodes.
> >> All nodes are connected with 2 networks - separated physically -
through
> >> 2
> >> sets of MICE (industrial managed switches). We call one network LAN
> > Alpha,
> >> and the other LAN Beta.
> >> All IP addresses are static, we have no DNS, no WINS, no DHCP - nothing
> >> really! Just IP addresses. The LAN A addresses are 192.1.0.xxx and
LAN
> >> B
> >> are 192.1.1.xxx. The problem we are having is with our 3rd party
> > software -
> >> an automation/process control package - which talks on both LANs. The
> >> software functions normally when everything is plugged in - if we
unplug
> >> a
> >> LAN cable or power down a switch, the servers and software switch to
> >> using
> >> the other LAN. I'm sure anyone familiar with redundancy knows what I'm
> >> on
> >> about.
> >>
> >> The problem is this.. when we disconnect LAN Alpha, and then reboot a
> >> machine (any machine) it can't connect properly when it restarts. We
> >> realise this is a problem with the software, and are in deep painful
> >> negotiations for a work around with the manufacturers. However, what
> >> I've
> >> noticed with Server 2003, is that the way the LANs work is affected by
> >> the
> >> binding order in Advanced Network Connection settings menu. Basically,
I
> >> can set LAN A or LAN B as "top priority", but if I kill that network,
the
> >> software can't switch to the other LAN immediately because Windows is
> >> busy
> >> timing out. This is noticable in Explorer, just browsing the
workgroup.
> >>
> >> Without wanting to make the question toooo complicated... can we set
both
> >> LAN cards to have the same priority?? IE delete the binding order???
> >>
> >> All this stuff worked fine in Windows 2000 Server/Professional - but
> >> there
> >> is definitely a difference with Server 2003.
> >>
> >> ANY thoughts advice or suggestions VERY welcome!!
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >> _____________________________________
> >> A frustrated engineer
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

Thanks for the suggestion, but the project is too far gone to change
philisophies. We're supposed to be out on site by February.
Our company has very little knowledge of advanced (or modern!) networking
techniques, and I'm sure you're right that teaming could be a better
solution after a bit of analysis. However, the existing systems are all
based on redundancy - I/O blocks, hardware controllers, PLCs, networks,
serial links and servers - so just changing the NICs to teaming would annoy
my boss's boss's boss... (feel free to correct that grammar :S)

We have since discovered a further quirk, which again points to the third
party software involved (as it inevitable does!). When pulling the LAN
cable from the back of the PC (i.e. the NIC), the software sees a complete
failure and just sits there - instead of failing over to the other NIC.
However, when we plugged the switch end of the cable into an isolated switch
(i.e. connected to a network, but that one cable being the only thing on the
network) the software saw the connection as "available" but failed and
promptly switched to the second LAN.

I'm in mid-discussion (and holding off a furious manager or two...) with the
third party company support/development personnel, and hopefully they can
issue a patch for the software. It still annoys me (not as much as them)
that Windows has changed philisophy without documentation... again.

Thanks for your suggestions.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
The Grim Reaper

"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Why not try Nic Teaming instead. The Nics have to be designed for it and
> have the correct drivers for it, but if redundancy is what this is about
> then that may be a better solution.
>
> --
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Understanding the ISA 2004 Access Rule Processing
> http://www.isaserver.org/articles/IS...cessRules.html
>
> Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Guidance
> http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/t...dance/2004.asp
> http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/t...dance/2000.asp
>
> Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Partners
> http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/partners/default.asp
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Grim Reaper" <gdewdneyatsilvertechcouk> wrote in message
> news:O9GQc%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> We've been googling for weeks and weeks!!
>> Looks like we'll just have to go back to BP and tell them their £30m
> upgrade
>> is going to be delayed.. :S
>> ________________________________________________
>> The Grim Reaper
>>
>> "Neteng" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >I think that's a problem with XP. Something about which NIC becomes
> active
>> > first. Google or search MS for it. I don't think there's a fix, it's
> just
>> > the way XP works.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Grim Reaper" <gdewdneyatsilvertechcouk> wrote in message
>> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >> Network Gurus,
>> >>
>> >> I have been searching for a solution to these problems for weeks... to
> no
>> >> avail. Please bear with me, it's a long and complex story!
>> >>
>> >> We have an industrial network - 6 win2k3 servers, and 12 or 13 XP
> nodes.
>> >> All nodes are connected with 2 networks - separated physically -
> through
>> >> 2
>> >> sets of MICE (industrial managed switches). We call one network LAN
>> > Alpha,
>> >> and the other LAN Beta.
>> >> All IP addresses are static, we have no DNS, no WINS, no DHCP -
>> >> nothing
>> >> really! Just IP addresses. The LAN A addresses are 192.1.0.xxx and
> LAN
>> >> B
>> >> are 192.1.1.xxx. The problem we are having is with our 3rd party
>> > software -
>> >> an automation/process control package - which talks on both LANs. The
>> >> software functions normally when everything is plugged in - if we
> unplug
>> >> a
>> >> LAN cable or power down a switch, the servers and software switch to
>> >> using
>> >> the other LAN. I'm sure anyone familiar with redundancy knows what
>> >> I'm
>> >> on
>> >> about.
>> >>
>> >> The problem is this.. when we disconnect LAN Alpha, and then reboot a
>> >> machine (any machine) it can't connect properly when it restarts. We
>> >> realise this is a problem with the software, and are in deep painful
>> >> negotiations for a work around with the manufacturers. However, what
>> >> I've
>> >> noticed with Server 2003, is that the way the LANs work is affected by
>> >> the
>> >> binding order in Advanced Network Connection settings menu.
>> >> Basically,
> I
>> >> can set LAN A or LAN B as "top priority", but if I kill that network,
> the
>> >> software can't switch to the other LAN immediately because Windows is
>> >> busy
>> >> timing out. This is noticable in Explorer, just browsing the
> workgroup.
>> >>
>> >> Without wanting to make the question toooo complicated... can we set
> both
>> >> LAN cards to have the same priority?? IE delete the binding order???
>> >>
>> >> All this stuff worked fine in Windows 2000 Server/Professional - but
>> >> there
>> >> is definitely a difference with Server 2003.
>> >>
>> >> ANY thoughts advice or suggestions VERY welcome!!
>> >>
>> >> Thanks.
>> >> _____________________________________
>> >> A frustrated engineer
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

"Grim Reaper" <gdewdneyatsilvertechcouk> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks for the suggestion, but the project is too far gone to change
> philisophies.

Not really.

> solution after a bit of analysis. However, the existing systems are all
> based on redundancy - I/O blocks, hardware controllers, PLCs, networks,
> serial links and servers

....which isn't exactly "redundating" rightnow.... :-) So what good is
redundancy that doesn't "redundate"

> that Windows has changed philisophy without documentation... again.

I haven't seen any philisophy being changed.

--
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Understanding the ISA 2004 Access Rule Processing
http://www.isaserver.org/articles/IS...cessRules.html

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Guidance
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/t...dance/2004.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/t...dance/2000.asp

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Partners
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/partners/default.asp
-----------------------------------------------------

>> Thanks for the suggestion, but the project is too far gone to change
>> philisophies.
>
> Not really.

Yes, really. Oil pumping vessels are in production 99% of the time, so
we're on a very tight schedule. The software changeover will be performed
on a live system anyhow, so redundancy is paramount.
We need half the old system running while we plumb in half the new system.

>
>> solution after a bit of analysis. However, the existing systems are all
>> based on redundancy - I/O blocks, hardware controllers, PLCs, networks,
>> serial links and servers
>
> ...which isn't exactly "redundating" rightnow.... :-) So what good is
> redundancy that doesn't "redundate"

Fair point

>
>> that Windows has changed philisophy without documentation... again.
>
> I haven't seen any philisophy being changed.
>

Same software's been working fine for 10 years. Same software with Windows
2003 Server instead of 2000 Server.. and it stops working.
OK.. I'll give you that _philisophy_ hasn't changed... but summink deep
inside Windows did!

Regards,

Grim

"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Grim Reaper" <gdewdneyatsilvertechcouk> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Thanks for the suggestion, but the project is too far gone to change
>> philisophies.
>
> Not really.
>
>> solution after a bit of analysis. However, the existing systems are all
>> based on redundancy - I/O blocks, hardware controllers, PLCs, networks,
>> serial links and servers
>
> ...which isn't exactly "redundating" rightnow.... :-) So what good is
> redundancy that doesn't "redundate"
>
>> that Windows has changed philisophy without documentation... again.
>
> I haven't seen any philisophy being changed.
>
> --
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Understanding the ISA 2004 Access Rule Processing
> http://www.isaserver.org/articles/IS...cessRules.html
>
> Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Guidance
> http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/t...dance/2004.asp
> http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/t...dance/2000.asp
>
> Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Partners
> http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/partners/default.asp
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

"Grim Reaper" <gdewdneyatsilvertechcouk> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> that Windows has changed philisophy without documentation... again.
> >
> > I haven't seen any philisophy being changed.
> >
>
> Same software's been working fine for 10 years. Same software with
Windows
> 2003 Server instead of 2000 Server.. and it stops working.
> OK.. I'll give you that _philisophy_ hasn't changed... but summink deep
> inside Windows did!

Not that I know of,...at least not regaurding this issue anyway. Your
attempt to build a redundant situation sounds like it is temporary until the
new system is fully in place, ...that means that you were not redundant in
this same way for the last 10 years before, which makes it impossible to
determine if a change in 2003 is really causing it.

I will look back at earlier posts and see if I see something, but I'm afraid
this may be one of those things where I would just have to be there and see
it for myself. There is probably some simple little design flaw in your
method that might be easy to fix,...if we just knew what it was.

--
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Understanding the ISA 2004 Access Rule Processing
http://www.isaserver.org/articles/IS...cessRules.html

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Guidance
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/t...dance/2004.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/t...dance/2000.asp

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Partners
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/partners/default.asp
-----------------------------------------------------

Ok, I've been looking back at an earlier post. I see no "real" solution. I
had a big long post with a lot of "stuff" in it and just deleted it. It is
pointless. The technology just does not function the way you think it does,
and it never did. If it appeared to be working with 2000 then it was
working due to some *other* mechanism that may have slipped by unoticed,
that is now either not functioning or no longer in place.

Some of these articles may be informative, but you have probably already
seen them.

128978 - Dead Gateway Detection in TCP/IP for Windows NT
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;128978

171564 - TCP/IP Dead Gateway Detection Algorithm Updated for Windows NT
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;171564

The following articles describe some of the same thing as the Dead Gateway
Detection, but goes into a little more detail.

159168 - Multiple Default Gateways Can Cause Connectivity Problems
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/159168/EN-US/

157025 - Default Gateway Configuration for Multihomed Computers
http://support.microsoft.com/default...roduct=win2000


--
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Understanding the ISA 2004 Access Rule Processing
http://www.isaserver.org/articles/IS...cessRules.html

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Guidance
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/t...dance/2004.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/t...dance/2000.asp

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Partners
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/partners/default.asp
-----------------------------------------------------

I don't think you quite understand where I'm coming from...
We have built hundreds of redundant systems - networks, servers,
workstations, controllers, I/O can ALL withstand a single failure with their
hot-standy other half kicking in.
We've been doing this for 30 years (the company.. not me personally!), on
QNX, HP Unix, Linux, Windows NT 3, NT 4, 2000 Server, 2000 Workstation, XP
Pro and now 2003 Server.
I'm not saying it's a flaw in Windows, I'm sure it's a flaw in the 3rd party
software - they don't exactly come across as professionals when you talk to
them.

Can I just ask.. are you in America??
_____________________________________________
Grim

"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:ugp%23Z8%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Ok, I've been looking back at an earlier post. I see no "real" solution.
> I
> had a big long post with a lot of "stuff" in it and just deleted it. It is
> pointless. The technology just does not function the way you think it
> does,
> and it never did. If it appeared to be working with 2000 then it was
> working due to some *other* mechanism that may have slipped by unoticed,
> that is now either not functioning or no longer in place.
>
> Some of these articles may be informative, but you have probably already
> seen them.
>
> 128978 - Dead Gateway Detection in TCP/IP for Windows NT
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;128978
>
> 171564 - TCP/IP Dead Gateway Detection Algorithm Updated for Windows NT
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;171564
>
> The following articles describe some of the same thing as the Dead Gateway
> Detection, but goes into a little more detail.
>
> 159168 - Multiple Default Gateways Can Cause Connectivity Problems
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/159168/EN-US/
>
> 157025 - Default Gateway Configuration for Multihomed Computers
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...roduct=win2000
>
>
> --
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Understanding the ISA 2004 Access Rule Processing
> http://www.isaserver.org/articles/IS...cessRules.html
>
> Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Guidance
> http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/t...dance/2004.asp
> http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/t...dance/2000.asp
>
> Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Partners
> http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/partners/default.asp
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>