Thanks for all the advice, I will try to work this with the managers see what we can come up with. As I said before this is a political mess because there are too many chiefs and few indians and unfortunately I don't have a power in the final decisions which is why things are not optimum. This was a good discussion and I will use your suggestions. Thank you all for your time ""Greg Reaume"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Great! Just what I needed. Thanks for the clarification. > > Now that I think about it, the ability to set TCP/IP properties on the > 'Network Bridge' item is a dead giveaway. :) > > Greg Reaume > > > ""Erick B."" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Greg, > > Windows XP does this by default in some situations. If > you have a PC with a Ethernet NIC and firewire > adapter, it will bridge the 2 interfaces together and > create a logical L3 interface that the protocols are > bound to all by default. > > --- Greg Reaume wrote: > > John, > > > > If WindowsXP is bridging two NICs it actually runs > > spanning-tree. It is a > > very nice feature for L1 redundancy. Though in your > > scenario I don't really > > see why they think that's necessary. I'm planning to > > use this functionality > > in the upcoming Windows.NET server to multihome all > > my servers, as long as > > it supports the concept of a loopback or virtual > > interface for L3 > > connectivity, to two different switches to protect > > against 48 servers > > failing because a switch burns out. I just wish MS > > had an add-on for > > Windows2K Server with this functionality so I don't > > have to wait. > > > > Check out these links: > > > > > http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsXP/pro/techinfo/administration/homenetbridge > > /default.asp > > > > > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/columns/c > > ableguy/cg0102.asp > > > > > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong but, from what I gather in > > your previous postings, > > loops seem to be your main concern. You say that it > > may very well be > > justified that these users need up to 5 PCs in their > > cube, or that you don't > > really want to get into that fight (whichever way > > you want to put it). You > > also say that it is very hard to run new drops. Why > > don't you take the > > approach of supporting them then, and instead of > > going through the work of > > running new drops, provide them with a small switch > > that runs spanning-tree. > > > > A 1548M (8-port desktop chassis) would do nicely for > > around $1K list. It > > allows for up to 4 local VLANs so the techs can do > > whatever they want on > > their own little switch. It also runs CDP so you can > > keep track of where > > they are through management tools like CiscoWorks, > > etc. If they want to clog > > up their link to the rest of the network with 5 PCs > > doing whatever, why not > > let them (as long as they do it safely)? > > > > Check here for more info on the 1548M: > > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps211/index.html > > > > HTH > > > > Greg Reaume > > > > > > > > ""JohnZ"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Well, when I wrote the orginal post I knew I will > > have these questions. > > Basically the first layer of support or help desk if > > you will have more PCs > > then the drops in their cubes. This is an old > > building not meant for an IS > > staff so there is some frustration on their part. I > > am not going to question > > if there is a legit need for folks to have 5 PCs > > when there is infact a > > seperate staging area to set up and test pcs for > > users. Any ways they know > > enough to be dangerous and there is no standard on > > hubs and I have seen > > where folks have created loops. Now with Windows XP > > I have seen some configs > > where 2 nics have been bridged via software I am not > > sure with what intent. > > Although it's been made clear many times not to use > > hubs but this is never > > enforced and I did not want to spend my time daily > > trying to hunt down the > > lawless. So that's when I thought if I could config > > the switch this will > > discourage the hub usage or bridging within pcs. I > > hope that answers most of > > the questions here. > > ""David j"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > See inline.. > > > Chuck's Long Road wrote: > > > > > > > > as much of a rulemeister as I am, I still have > > to look at this > > > > from the user > > > > standpoint. Why are users throwing their own > > hubs onto the > > > > network? Is there > > > > a business case to be made? Is facilities too > > slow getting > > > > requested cable > > > > pulls done? > > > > > > > > what is the concern with a user plugging a hub > > in at the desk > > > > and then > > > > connected a couple of extra PC's? if the problem > > is one of dual > > > > homing by > > > > accident or otherwise, I can see the issue with > > spanning tree > > > > recalculations. But in a single home situation, > > what do you > > > > see as the > > > > issues? > > > > > > > > > > I see one issue: collisions, if you have a > > switched network you don't want > > > to deal with collisions that hubs normally > > produce. I have to recognize, > > > though, that hubs sometimes are very convenient > > and I'm the first on using > > > them. > > > > > > > when you say that "politically, it's a mess" > > what does that > > > > mean? high > > > > powered sales people throwing their weight > > around? management > > > > does not > > > > respect your input or concerns? something bad is > > happening, and > > > > it's rolling > > > > downhill? > > > > > > > In some environments it's politically > > unacceptable, I know some hospitals > > in > > > which you have to fill in a lot papers before > > being allowed to use a PC, > > so > > > in that environments this could perfectly be part > > of the policy. > > > > > > > I'm not questioning the wisdom or the necessity > > for doing what > > > > others have > > > > suggested. I'm just wondering why it is > > necessary for the > > > > network manager / > > > > network staff to unilaterally cut off user > > access. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""John Zaggat"" wrote in message > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > Thanks guys that's pretty good information, > > but do you think > > > > in your > > > > opinion > > > > > is that good approach to deal with this > > problem. Do you see > > > > any caveats > > > > and > > > > > are there any other ways this can be dealt > > with. > > > > > ""Kevin Wigle"" wrote in message > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > > take a look into Port Security. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps708/products_configuration > > > > > > _guide_chapter09186a008007f2dd.html > > > > > > > > > > > > In the event of a security violation, you > > can configure the > > > > port to go > > > > > into > > > > > > shutdown mode or restrictive mode. The > > shutdown mode option > > > > allows you > > > > to > > > > > > specify whether the port is permanently > > disabled or > > > > disabled for only a > > > > > > specified time. The default is for the port > > to shut down > > > > permanently. > > > > The > > > > > > restrictive mode allows you to configure the > > port to remain > > > > enabled > > > > during > > > > > a > > > > > > security violation and drop only packets > > that are coming in > > > > from > > > > insecure > > > > > > hosts. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kevin Wigle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "John Zaggat" > > > > > > To: > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 5:01 PM > > > > > > Subject: How to restrict hubs in a LAN > > [7:54937] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am just trying to think of how to > > restrict Hubs from > > > > being used in > > > > the > > > > > > > LAN. Politically it's a mess and despite a > > lot of > > > > discussions certain > > > > > > people > > > > > > > are able to add hubs at will where ever > > they want. So I > > > > was trying to > > > > > > think > > > > > > > of a way to stop that within the switch. > > Now normally > > > > these ports that > > > > > the > > > > > > > hubs are connected to show several mac > > addresses when I > > > > do "show cam" > > > > > > which > > > > > > > gives me an idea is there any way to > > restrict host ports > > > > to only > > > > accept > > > > > > one > > > > > > > mac-address. I don't want to hardcode the > > mac-address > > > > because that > > > > would > > > > > > be > > > > > > > too much a administrative burden. But if I > > could restrict > > > > the port to > > > > > > accept > > > > > > > just one mac-address then that will make > > these hubs > > > > useless. Well > > > > > anyways > > > > > > > let me know if I am way off here but are > > there any other > > > > tricks in > > > > use > > > > > by > > > > > > > any of you guys. I'll appreciate any > > pointers. > > > > > > > JZ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > http://faith.yahoo.com
Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54983&t=54937 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
