"Grant" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4228cf36$0$8760$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Tim Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4221f1cf$0$26753$(E-Mail Removed) ...
> | Hi all,
> |
> | I hope someone can help with this problem as I have been struggling for
> some
> | time now. I have been asked to do a little work on the network at my
wifes
> | work
> |
> | The setup is as follows.
> |
> | Windows 2003 Server machine running a BT COnnect ADSL connection via a
USB
> | modem. IP address 213.123.xxx.xxx. This machine also has two ethernet
> ports
> | 192.168.0.1 and 192.168.0.2 (subnet masks 255.255.255.0). The default
> route
> | is set as 192.168.0.1 and DNS is 192.168.0.1 for both ports. I didnt
> really
> | understand the benefit of two ports.
> |
> | The other machine in the network (5 of 'em) all run Windows XP.
> |
> | Some machine are configured as DHCP from teh server (and pick up default
> | route of 192.168.0.1) and have a DNS configured as 192.168.0.1. The
other
> | machines are configured statically and have a deault route of
192.168.0.1
> | and DNS of 192.168.0.1. There is also a network printer (Xerox Phaser
860)
> | configured with an IP of 192.168.0.110 and default route of 192.168.0.1.
> |
> | Here is the problem.
> |
> | I thought it would be a good idea, security-wise and to allow a VPN
> | connection to install an ADSL router instead (got the Vigor 2600+).
> |
> | To all minimum changes to the network at one time, I isntalled this as
> | 192.168.0.101. It picked up the same WAN address as the server had had.
> |
> | Now the machines, that were configured statically, I changed to point to
> | 192.168.0.101 as DNS and default route.
> |
> | The machines that were configured by DHCP I left picking up details form
> | server (minimum changes at one go), but I did change there DNS to
> | 192.168.0.101.
> |
> | On the server I changed the default route and DNS to 192.168.0.101 for
> both
> | ethernet cards. I guess that machines that are dynamically allocated now
> go
> | via the server and hten the router to get to the outside work which isnt
> | great but should work for now.
> |
> | However since doing this, the network printer has been really slow.
> |
> | If I print a test page, I can see the most of the document size go into
> the
> | queue (looking from Windows). This then sits there for approximately a
> | minute before printing and removing from queue.
> |
> | If I power off the router but leave all other configuration in place,
the
> | printer pritns within 10 seconds or so.
> |
> | One machine, has the same printer connected via two methods (ethernet
and
> | parallel). The parallel prints instantly if used through the parallel
port
> | so it is not hte printer.
> |
> | I cannot understand why this is the case as the only thing changed is
the
> | the default routes and these should only take effect if the machines
> talking
> | to each otehr (pritner and pc) are on different networks.
> |
> | The communication must also be tehre because the print does happen
> | eventually.
> |
> | Thanks for any help
> |
> | Tim
> |
> |
> sounds like a DNS issue to me:
>
> In your config you should have set the DHCP server to allocate a default
> gateway of 192.168.0.101 to its clients. Then all static clients have the
> default gateway set manually.
>
> If your Server is running as a Domain Controller with a local DNS zone
then
> by changing the DNS server for the clients to that of the router (which in
> turn will be using your ISPs DNS presumably) local DNS lookups will not be
> happening and eventually will fail - then NetBIOS resolution eventually
> kicks in and after a while the job prints.
>
> To test this theory put one of your client's DNS back to point at the
server
> and see if it prints quickly.
>
> If this is indeed the case, then all your clients will need to have the
> server as their DNS provider and the server should be set up so that the
DNS
> will not only provide local lookups but will also act as a cached lookup
> server by enabling a DNS forwarder address of the router.
>
> You don't need both server Ethernet interfaces to be plugged into the same
> subnet as long as all services are available on one of them.
>
> Grant
> --
>
>
>
Grant,
Thanks for the reply. I did have another go this weekend although I hadnt
seen your post at that point.
The only thing I did find was that I can reproduce the same symptoms by
using a PC, the printer and a cross over cable. I did take an ethereal trace
at the same time and can see very few packets between the two for about a
minute and then something kicks in an everything starts happening. Trying to
decode what happens is beyond me though....
Thanks for the help
Tim
|
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
