Question Servers with 2 Nics and Lan/Internet

Hello!

My plan is to enable the 1000Mbps nics on our servers and a few of the
workstations, all of which are currently only using their 100 Mbps
nics, and connect each to a new gigabit switch. I believe I should
give those nics a different ip address (in the range of 192.168.10.1 -
192.168.10.8) other than that which is currently used on our network
(192.168.100.50 - 192.168.100.200) but without a default gateway
configured. I don't think it is necessary to do anything more than
this. Is that the correct approach to this?

In detail, I want to use both nics in our servers the way I am sure
they were intended to be used: 100Mbps connecting to the internet and
1000Mbps connected to the internal nework. I am not really sure how
this is going to work yet though which is why I am here. The higher
ups think I should do this with our servers and a few workstations
first so they can determine its cost effectiveness. At present my
company has disabled the 1000Mbps nics in our servers and is using the
100Mbps ports to connect to the a bank of 100Mbps switches that form
our internal network and all of this works fine but we need more speed.
I have convinced my company to upgrade the internal network including
all of the company PCs to 1Gbit in a couple of months. It'll be fun
and well worth the effort but they want a proof of concept of sorts
starting with our 4 servers and 4 of our busiest workstations. I have
ordered a 1 Gbit switch with 8 ports and verified that the 4 servers
and 4 workstations have both types of nics installed. All 4 of the
servers have both 100 and 1000 Mbps nics installed and are running
Windows 2003 (the dc is running actually running SBS 2003). The 4
workstations are running XP Pro. I am thinking I need to enable the
gigabit nics, assign them ip addresses outside of the range of IPs
currently used, and be careful not to configure a default gateway. Is
this enough? Is it correct?

Thanks!
Matthew Hanna

That would work in theory but it almost always fails in practice. The
reason it fails is linked to name resolution. If the name of the target
machine resolves to the IP of its 100M NIC, the sending machine uses its
100M NIC to send to it (because it has to be in the same IP subnet). The
gigabit NIC would be active but doing nothing.

It would only use the gigabit NIC if the target machine's name resolved
to the IP of its gigabit NIC. That requires reconfiguring how DNS works on
the LAN.

You would probably be better off just upgrading the private LAN from
100M to gigabit and disable the 100M NICs.

"irtheman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> Hello!
>
> My plan is to enable the 1000Mbps nics on our servers and a few of the
> workstations, all of which are currently only using their 100 Mbps
> nics, and connect each to a new gigabit switch. I believe I should
> give those nics a different ip address (in the range of 192.168.10.1 -
> 192.168.10.8) other than that which is currently used on our network
> (192.168.100.50 - 192.168.100.200) but without a default gateway
> configured. I don't think it is necessary to do anything more than
> this. Is that the correct approach to this?
>
> In detail, I want to use both nics in our servers the way I am sure
> they were intended to be used: 100Mbps connecting to the internet and
> 1000Mbps connected to the internal nework. I am not really sure how
> this is going to work yet though which is why I am here. The higher
> ups think I should do this with our servers and a few workstations
> first so they can determine its cost effectiveness. At present my
> company has disabled the 1000Mbps nics in our servers and is using the
> 100Mbps ports to connect to the a bank of 100Mbps switches that form
> our internal network and all of this works fine but we need more speed.
> I have convinced my company to upgrade the internal network including
> all of the company PCs to 1Gbit in a couple of months. It'll be fun
> and well worth the effort but they want a proof of concept of sorts
> starting with our 4 servers and 4 of our busiest workstations. I have
> ordered a 1 Gbit switch with 8 ports and verified that the 4 servers
> and 4 workstations have both types of nics installed. All 4 of the
> servers have both 100 and 1000 Mbps nics installed and are running
> Windows 2003 (the dc is running actually running SBS 2003). The 4
> workstations are running XP Pro. I am thinking I need to enable the
> gigabit nics, assign them ip addresses outside of the range of IPs
> currently used, and be careful not to configure a default gateway. Is
> this enough? Is it correct?
>
> Thanks!
> Matthew Hanna
>

In news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com,
irtheman <(E-Mail Removed)> stated, which I commented on below:
> Hello!
>
> My plan is to enable the 1000Mbps nics on our servers and a few of the
> workstations, all of which are currently only using their 100 Mbps
> nics, and connect each to a new gigabit switch. I believe I should
> give those nics a different ip address (in the range of 192.168.10.1 -
> 192.168.10.8) other than that which is currently used on our network
> (192.168.100.50 - 192.168.100.200) but without a default gateway
> configured. I don't think it is necessary to do anything more than
> this. Is that the correct approach to this?
>
> In detail, I want to use both nics in our servers the way I am sure
> they were intended to be used: 100Mbps connecting to the internet and
> 1000Mbps connected to the internal nework. I am not really sure how
> this is going to work yet though which is why I am here. The higher
> ups think I should do this with our servers and a few workstations
> first so they can determine its cost effectiveness. At present my
> company has disabled the 1000Mbps nics in our servers and is using the
> 100Mbps ports to connect to the a bank of 100Mbps switches that form
> our internal network and all of this works fine but we need more
> speed. I have convinced my company to upgrade the internal network
> including all of the company PCs to 1Gbit in a couple of months.
> It'll be fun and well worth the effort but they want a proof of
> concept of sorts starting with our 4 servers and 4 of our busiest
> workstations. I have ordered a 1 Gbit switch with 8 ports and
> verified that the 4 servers and 4 workstations have both types of
> nics installed. All 4 of the servers have both 100 and 1000 Mbps
> nics installed and are running Windows 2003 (the dc is running
> actually running SBS 2003). The 4 workstations are running XP Pro.
> I am thinking I need to enable the gigabit nics, assign them ip
> addresses outside of the range of IPs currently used, and be careful
> not to configure a default gateway. Is this enough? Is it correct?
>
> Thanks!
> Matthew Hanna

I agree with Bill. To elaborate, it comes down to controlling DNS
registration of the NIC you do not want to register. Yes, you must control
that. It's a series of steps and registry entries that alters default DC
behavior. Honestly, multihomed DCs are very problematic and I guarantee will
cause problems. I have a series of steps (numerous) I can post to perform on
each multihomed DC, but I highly recommend only use one NIC and let your
infrastructure route traffic accordingly.

--
Ace
Innovative IT Concepts, Inc (IITCI)
Willow Grove, PA

This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
confers no rights.

Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT, MVP
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
Microsoft Certified Trainer

Having difficulty reading or finding responses to your post?
Instead of the website you're using, I suggest to use OEx (Outlook Express
or any other newsreader), and configure a news account, pointing to
news.microsoft.com. This is a direct link to the Microsoft Public
Newsgroups. It is FREE and requires NO ISP's Usenet account. OEx allows you
to easily find, track threads, cross-post, sort by date, poster's name,
watched threads or subject.
It's easy:

How to Configure OEx for Internet News
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=171164

Infinite Diversities in Infinite Combinations
Assimilation Imminent. Resistance is Futile
"Very funny Scotty. Now, beam down my clothes."

The only constant in life is change...

Ouch. I was hoping that wasn't the case. Oh well...

Thanks for the input!

Matthew Hanna

Ace Fekay [MVP] wrote:
> In news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com,
> irtheman <(E-Mail Removed)> stated, which I commented on below:
> > Hello!
> >
> > My plan is to enable the 1000Mbps nics on our servers and a few of the
> > workstations, all of which are currently only using their 100 Mbps
> > nics, and connect each to a new gigabit switch. I believe I should
> > give those nics a different ip address (in the range of 192.168.10.1 -
> > 192.168.10.8) other than that which is currently used on our network
> > (192.168.100.50 - 192.168.100.200) but without a default gateway
> > configured. I don't think it is necessary to do anything more than
> > this. Is that the correct approach to this?
> >
> > In detail, I want to use both nics in our servers the way I am sure
> > they were intended to be used: 100Mbps connecting to the internet and
> > 1000Mbps connected to the internal nework. I am not really sure how
> > this is going to work yet though which is why I am here. The higher
> > ups think I should do this with our servers and a few workstations
> > first so they can determine its cost effectiveness. At present my
> > company has disabled the 1000Mbps nics in our servers and is using the
> > 100Mbps ports to connect to the a bank of 100Mbps switches that form
> > our internal network and all of this works fine but we need more
> > speed. I have convinced my company to upgrade the internal network
> > including all of the company PCs to 1Gbit in a couple of months.
> > It'll be fun and well worth the effort but they want a proof of
> > concept of sorts starting with our 4 servers and 4 of our busiest
> > workstations. I have ordered a 1 Gbit switch with 8 ports and
> > verified that the 4 servers and 4 workstations have both types of
> > nics installed. All 4 of the servers have both 100 and 1000 Mbps
> > nics installed and are running Windows 2003 (the dc is running
> > actually running SBS 2003). The 4 workstations are running XP Pro.
> > I am thinking I need to enable the gigabit nics, assign them ip
> > addresses outside of the range of IPs currently used, and be careful
> > not to configure a default gateway. Is this enough? Is it correct?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Matthew Hanna
>
> I agree with Bill. To elaborate, it comes down to controlling DNS
> registration of the NIC you do not want to register. Yes, you must control
> that. It's a series of steps and registry entries that alters default DC
> behavior. Honestly, multihomed DCs are very problematic and I guarantee will
> cause problems. I have a series of steps (numerous) I can post to perform on
> each multihomed DC, but I highly recommend only use one NIC and let your
> infrastructure route traffic accordingly.
>
> --
> Ace
> Innovative IT Concepts, Inc (IITCI)
> Willow Grove, PA
>
> This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
> confers no rights.
>
> Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT, MVP
> Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
> Microsoft Certified Trainer
>
> Having difficulty reading or finding responses to your post?
> Instead of the website you're using, I suggest to use OEx (Outlook Express
> or any other newsreader), and configure a news account, pointing to
> news.microsoft.com. This is a direct link to the Microsoft Public
> Newsgroups. It is FREE and requires NO ISP's Usenet account. OEx allows you
> to easily find, track threads, cross-post, sort by date, poster's name,
> watched threads or subject.
> It's easy:
>
> How to Configure OEx for Internet News
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=171164
>
> Infinite Diversities in Infinite Combinations
> Assimilation Imminent. Resistance is Futile
> "Very funny Scotty. Now, beam down my clothes."
>
> The only constant in life is change...

In news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com,
irtheman <(E-Mail Removed)> stated, which I commented on below:
> Ouch. I was hoping that wasn't the case. Oh well...
>
> Thanks for the input!
>
> Matthew Hanna

No problem. Good luck! Post back if you have any further questions.

Ace