Oh I see.... hehehe Rah
-----Original Message----- From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 10 May 2002 19:43 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: dual-homed hosts problems [7:43677] Sob as in cry! OSPF makes me cry. ;-) At 07:15 PM 5/10/02, Rah Hussain wrote: >Priscilla, >That's not very lady like ;-) Just kidding too :-) > >Rah > >-----Original Message----- >From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: 10 May 2002 17:58 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: dual-homed hosts problems [7:43677] > >At 12:35 PM 5/10/02, Maximus wrote: > >Sorry list members, the spell-checker changed OSPF to SOP. > >I think OSPF should be SOB. Just kidding! :-) > >Priscilla > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Maximus" > >To: > >Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 12:40 PM > >Subject: Re: dual-homed hosts problems [7:43677] > > > > > > > I may be wrong but your friend is using a routing protocol and therefore > >the > > > below would not apply to the scenario. > > > As for running SOP on the server IMHO it would be overkill for this > >specific > > > situation. "Keep it simple." > > > Would I run SOP on a server? > > > Depends on why I had the server built in the first place. Have a nice > >day! > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Jeffrey Reed" > > > To: > > > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 8:27 AM > > > Subject: RE: dual-homed hosts problems [7:43677] > > > > > > > > > > I just talked to someone yesterday who said they are running OSPF on >the > > > > WIN2000 servers and using dual NICs effectively. Is this a better way >to > > > > dual home servers? > > > > > > > > Jeffrey Reed > > > > Classic Networking, Inc. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > > Galo > > > > Villacis > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 7:18 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: dual-homed hosts problems [7:43677] > > > > > > > > I believe your issue may relate to the single IP stack on 2000. Try > > > > defaulting traffic to the internet and adding a static route to the > > > internal > > > > network opposed to specifying the gateway on the internal IP >interface. > > > > Also I would go as far as disabling any NETBIOS on the external > >interface > > > > for security. > > > > > > > > cmd would be: > > > > > > > > route add -p Network Mask Gateway > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Henrique Duarte" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 5:48 PM > > > > Subject: Re: dual-homed hosts problems [7:43677] > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bulent, > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the reply. I am afraid you may have misunderstood >this > > > > > problem. Allow me to be more clear: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 192.168.0.1 --------------------- 192.168.0.150 - Host A - > >128.59.39.3 > > > > > | >(dual > > > > homed > > > > > server) > > > > > | > > > > > | > > > > > | > > > > > | > > > > > | > > > > > 128.59.39.2 > > > > > router A > >router > > > > > C ---------------------------- Internet > > > > > | > > > > > 192.168.1.1 > > > > > | > > > > > | > > > > > T1 > > > > > | > > > > > | > > > > > 192.168.1.2 > > > > > | > > > > > router B > > > > > | > > > > > 192.168.2.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem happens on Host A. Host A is a WebServer with 2 > > > interfaces: > > > > a > > > > > public (which goes out to the internet) and a private (which talks >to > > > the > > > > > database). The private interface has IP 192.168.0.150 and default >GW > > > > > 192.168.0.1. The public has ip 128.59.39.3 and default GW > >128.59.39.2. > > > > > Everything works fine if I leave the private interface's default GW > > > blank. > > > > > If I put Router C's address as the private interface's default > >gateway, > > > > > after some time I cannot ping anywhere from Host A, even though I >can > > > ping > > > > > it from the outside world. I need to have the private interface > > > > configured > > > > > with 192.168.0.1 as the default GW because remote users need to be > >able > > > to > > > > > connect to that server via the back-end T1. Any light would be > >greatly > > > > > appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > -H > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "B|lent ^ahin" > > > > > To: > > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 3:17 AM > > > > > Subject: RE: dual-homed hosts problems [7:43677] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When configuring ethernet interfaces on MS environment, you have > >three > > > > > blank > > > > > > spaces to fill: IP_address, Subnet_mask and Default_gateway. So >the > > > > people > > > > > > start to think every ethernet interface as a router: "This >interface > > > > will > > > > > > route IP packets to the other interface, so the default gateway of > >the > > > > > first > > > > > > interface should be same as the IP address of the second > >interface.", > > > > but > > > > > > there is one router on the PC: CPU. Try to configure only one > >default > > > > > > gateway. You can use the command "route print" to see what happens > > > when > > > > > you > > > > > > configure two or more default gateways. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bulent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Henrique Duarte [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:39 AM > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Subject: dual-homed hosts problems [7:43677] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello All, > > > > > > > > > > > > I am working on some dual homed servers at a co-location where >there > > > is > > > > a > > > > > > public and private interface on each. The public interfaces attach > >to > > > > the > > > > > > internet via a router while the private ones are on its own >separate > > > > > private > > > > > > subnet. The private subnet is attached to another router, which > > > provides > > > > > > remote users access to the private network via a T1 line. I am > > > > > encountering > > > > > > the following issue. When I set the private interfaces' default > > > gateway > > > > to > > > > > > the private interface's router address, it works fine for about 10 > > > > minutes > > > > > > or so, but after that the server cannot ping and/or access the > > > internet, > > > > > > even though it is set with the public NIC to be the primary one. > > > > However, > > > > > as > > > > > > soon as I take the default gateway out of the private interface >NIC > >it > > > > > works > > > > > > fine and is able to ping the outside world. Does anyone have any > >ideas > > > > why > > > > > > this is happening and/or how to fix it? The servers are running > > > Windows > > > > > 2000 > > > > > > Server and the T1 router is a Cisco 1601. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > -Henrique >________________________ > >Priscilla Oppenheimer >http://www.priscilla.com ________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=43881&t=43677 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
