Two NICs

[Guest ratman and bobbin]

Server config is a Terminal Server with an Exchange Server (both 2003). The

IP config is using all fixed IP's with no DHCP at all, the internet

connection is a static ip with RDP forwarded to the TS.

The internet connection is ADSL but the user has purchased a 20mb cable

connection with a view to improving communications performance and wants to

have both connections active. NLB is not required.

 

Can I just add the second nic, connect it to the cable router, and use a

fixed IP on the same subnet as the ADSL router?

ADSL router 192.168.1.1

Cable router 192.168.1.254

TS Server 192.168.1.5, gateway 192.168.1.1 on one nic and 192.168.1.253

gateway 192.168.1.254 on the new nic.

Exchange Server 192.168.1.6 gateway 192.168.1.1 running DNS and WINS

Seems too simple and I am sure I have overlooked something. Any comments or

input much appreciated!

Geoff

[Guest Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

Re: Two NICs

 

ratman and bobbin <you.would.like.to@know> wrote:

> Server config is a Terminal Server with an Exchange Server (both

> 2003). The IP config is using all fixed IP's with no DHCP at all, the

> internet connection is a static ip with RDP forwarded to the TS.

> The internet connection is ADSL but the user has purchased a 20mb

> cable connection

 

20mb or 20Mb or ??

> with a view to improving communications performance

> and wants to have both connections active.

 

Aggregated? I don't know how well this is going to work given that it's ADSL

and cable.

> NLB is not required.

>

> Can I just add the second nic, connect it to the cable router, and

> use a fixed IP on the same subnet as the ADSL router?

> ADSL router 192.168.1.1

> Cable router 192.168.1.254

> TS Server 192.168.1.5, gateway 192.168.1.1 on one nic and

> 192.168.1.253 gateway 192.168.1.254 on the new nic.

> Exchange Server 192.168.1.6 gateway 192.168.1.1 running DNS and WINS

> Seems too simple and I am sure I have overlooked something. Any

> comments or input much appreciated!

> Geoff

 

Don't use two NICs - it isn't recommended in a DC and won't do what you want

anyway. Instead, get them a router that has two WAN interfaces and can

handle this seamlessly. Actually, rather than a straight router, I'd check

out the SonicWALL line - you haven't mentioned what your firewall protection

is.

 

Inbound connectivity will be more problematic than outbound - you may need

to get a dynamic DNS service such as DynDNS (even though you've got statics)

and access your TS / Exchange via a dynamically updated hostname.

 

PS: I presume you mean your network has a single DC which also runs

Exchange, and the Terminal Services box is a member server....if so, that's

a good setup,although it's best to run Exchange on a member server if at

all possible. In a small office this can't always happen. Just don't run

Exchange on your TS box (or vice versa) and don't make your TS box a DC or

anything besides a TS box.

 

PPS: It's always going to be presumed that anyone with a lick of sense uses

static IPs on their servers, so that isn't really worth mentioning....if you

mean you use static IPs on your workstations, it isn't relevant here,

although I would question the wisdom of that as DHCP is so much easier to

manage.

[Guest Meinolf Weber]

Re: Two NICs

 

Hello ratman,

 

I would not configure a TS with real server tasks like exchange or a domain

controller. They should be run as dedicated machines and do nothing else.

 

Best regards

 

Meinolf Weber

Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers

no rights.

** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups

** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm

> Server config is a Terminal Server with an Exchange Server (both

> 2003). The

> IP config is using all fixed IP's with no DHCP at all, the internet

> connection is a static ip with RDP forwarded to the TS.

> The internet connection is ADSL but the user has purchased a 20mb

> cable

> connection with a view to improving communications performance and

> wants to

> have both connections active. NLB is not required.

> Can I just add the second nic, connect it to the cable router, and use

> a

> fixed IP on the same subnet as the ADSL router?

> ADSL router 192.168.1.1

> Cable router 192.168.1.254

> TS Server 192.168.1.5, gateway 192.168.1.1 on one nic and

> 192.168.1.253

> gateway 192.168.1.254 on the new nic.

> Exchange Server 192.168.1.6 gateway 192.168.1.1 running DNS and WINS

> Seems too simple and I am sure I have overlooked something. Any

> comments or

> input much appreciated!

> Geoff

[Guest ratman and bobbin]

Re: Two NICs

 

 

"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"

<lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com> wrote in message

news:eBIvZEEbIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> ratman and bobbin <you.would.like.to@know> wrote:

>> Server config is a Terminal Server with an Exchange Server (both

>> 2003). The IP config is using all fixed IP's with no DHCP at all, the

>> internet connection is a static ip with RDP forwarded to the TS.

>> The internet connection is ADSL but the user has purchased a 20mb

>> cable connection

>

> 20mb or 20Mb or ??

>

>> with a view to improving communications performance

>> and wants to have both connections active.

>

> Aggregated? I don't know how well this is going to work given that it's

> ADSL and cable.

>

>> NLB is not required.

>>

>> Can I just add the second nic, connect it to the cable router, and

>> use a fixed IP on the same subnet as the ADSL router?

>> ADSL router 192.168.1.1

>> Cable router 192.168.1.254

>> TS Server 192.168.1.5, gateway 192.168.1.1 on one nic and

>> 192.168.1.253 gateway 192.168.1.254 on the new nic.

>> Exchange Server 192.168.1.6 gateway 192.168.1.1 running DNS and WINS

>> Seems too simple and I am sure I have overlooked something. Any

>> comments or input much appreciated!

>> Geoff

>

> Don't use two NICs - it isn't recommended in a DC and won't do what you

> want anyway. Instead, get them a router that has two WAN interfaces and

> can handle this seamlessly. Actually, rather than a straight router, I'd

> check out the SonicWALL line - you haven't mentioned what your firewall

> protection is.

>

> Inbound connectivity will be more problematic than outbound - you may need

> to get a dynamic DNS service such as DynDNS (even though you've got

> statics) and access your TS / Exchange via a dynamically updated hostname.

>

> PS: I presume you mean your network has a single DC which also runs

> Exchange, and the Terminal Services box is a member server....if so,

> that's a good setup,although it's best to run Exchange on a member server

> if at all possible. In a small office this can't always happen. Just don't

> run Exchange on your TS box (or vice versa) and don't make your TS box a

> DC or anything besides a TS box.

>

> PPS: It's always going to be presumed that anyone with a lick of sense

> uses static IPs on their servers, so that isn't really worth

> mentioning....if you mean you use static IPs on your workstations, it

> isn't relevant here, although I would question the wisdom of that as DHCP

> is so much easier to manage.

>

>

> Problem mostly resolved by the user deciding to have just one connection.

For additional background the Exchange Server is the DC and the TS just runs

TS. There are only 6 users who all use RDP; the servers are located at a

private address for hardware security reasons.

No option with the static IP's; the cable provider does not provide static

so will be using DynDns for mapping.

 

As ever my appreciation for you all taking the time to read and respond!

Geoff

[Guest Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

Re: Two NICs

 

ratman and bobbin <you.would.like.to@know> wrote:

> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"

> <lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com> wrote in

> message news:eBIvZEEbIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> ratman and bobbin <you.would.like.to@know> wrote:

>>> Server config is a Terminal Server with an Exchange Server (both

>>> 2003). The IP config is using all fixed IP's with no DHCP at all,

>>> the internet connection is a static ip with RDP forwarded to the TS.

>>> The internet connection is ADSL but the user has purchased a 20mb

>>> cable connection

>>

>> 20mb or 20Mb or ??

>>

>>> with a view to improving communications performance

>>> and wants to have both connections active.

>>

>> Aggregated? I don't know how well this is going to work given that

>> it's ADSL and cable.

>>

>>> NLB is not required.

>>>

>>> Can I just add the second nic, connect it to the cable router, and

>>> use a fixed IP on the same subnet as the ADSL router?

>>> ADSL router 192.168.1.1

>>> Cable router 192.168.1.254

>>> TS Server 192.168.1.5, gateway 192.168.1.1 on one nic and

>>> 192.168.1.253 gateway 192.168.1.254 on the new nic.

>>> Exchange Server 192.168.1.6 gateway 192.168.1.1 running DNS and WINS

>>> Seems too simple and I am sure I have overlooked something. Any

>>> comments or input much appreciated!

>>> Geoff

>>

>> Don't use two NICs - it isn't recommended in a DC and won't do what

>> you want anyway. Instead, get them a router that has two WAN

>> interfaces and can handle this seamlessly. Actually, rather than a

>> straight router, I'd check out the SonicWALL line - you haven't

>> mentioned what your firewall protection is.

>>

>> Inbound connectivity will be more problematic than outbound - you

>> may need to get a dynamic DNS service such as DynDNS (even though

>> you've got statics) and access your TS / Exchange via a dynamically

>> updated hostname. PS: I presume you mean your network has a single DC

>> which also runs

>> Exchange, and the Terminal Services box is a member server....if so,

>> that's a good setup,although it's best to run Exchange on a member

>> server if at all possible. In a small office this can't always

>> happen. Just don't run Exchange on your TS box (or vice versa) and

>> don't make your TS box a DC or anything besides a TS box.

>>

>> PPS: It's always going to be presumed that anyone with a lick of

>> sense uses static IPs on their servers, so that isn't really worth

>> mentioning....if you mean you use static IPs on your workstations, it

>> isn't relevant here, although I would question the wisdom of that as

>> DHCP is so much easier to manage.

>>

>>

>Problem mostly resolved by the user deciding to have just one

>connection.

 

Excellent.

> For additional background the Exchange Server is the DC and the TS

> just runs TS.

 

Even more so. And even more reason *not* to multihome this box.

> There are only 6 users who all use RDP; the servers are

> located at a private address for hardware security reasons.

> No option with the static IP's; the cable provider does not provide

> static so will be using DynDns for mapping.

 

That wouldn't help you host multiple resources requiring the same listening

ports, if you cared about access from the internet!

 

If the company decides they want to move forward with this someday, they

will probably need to look into leased lines.

>

> As ever my appreciation for you all taking the time to read and

> respond! Geoff

 

You're welcome - glad you're off the hook.