"Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:0af801c46e79$44e0ae10$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Really, Then what is the point of having dual NIC's in a
> windows box then?
In terms of "load balancing" there is no point. It isn't a "Windows thing"
it is a "TCP/IP thing". TCP/IP by nature won't uses two NICs with different
IP# for the same thing at the same time. It requires special software that
runs "above" TCP/IP to cause both NICs to appear to be one NIC with a
*single* IP# (a Virtual IP#) to combine the bandwidth of the NICs together.
There are special NICs designed for this purpose that comes with proprietary
software designed to work with such NICs to do this. I believe also Cisco
Routers can do this with a combination of the OS and Routing Protocols which
of course also run "above" TCP/IP.
> Other than to bridge a gap between networks?
If you mean Layer3 Routing (bridging is different) then yes,...that is the
primary purpose of using two NICs, however this fails if the NICs use IP#s
from the same subnet,...the subnets must be different.
The other purpose of having two NIC in a Windows box is to create a "NAT
Firewall" using RRAS.
Bridging is a different thing and only works when the subnet of each NIC is
the same subnet (just the opposite of Layer3 routing). This is rarely
needed and is only an option in XP and Server 2003 (and newer. The reason
it is rarely needed and not a part of older Windows OS's is because this is
already done extemely easy with a simple Switch. LAN Switches are nothing
more than Multi-Port Bridges, so bridging is what they "do". The older
"seldom-seen-anymore" hardware Bridges were nothing more than a Switch with
only two ports (in & out).
--
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
