IP aliases on a DHCP'ed interface

"Phillip Windell" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "Ace Fekay [Microsoft Certified Trainer]" <>
> wrote in message news:...
>> "Phillip Windell" <> wrote in message
>> news:%23v%237n$...
>
>> I glanced at your name and after typing a few minutes and not double
>> checking, I could have sworn I saw Paul Bergson's name. After I hit send,
>> and looked again, is when I saw I messed up!!!
>
> I don't mind being mistaken for him at all,...he just may not want it to
> be the other way around,...so don't call him Phil :-)
>

LOL! I'll keep that in mind!

:-)

Cheers!

"Phillip Windell" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "Phillip Windell" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>
> Ya'know ,...if this "they" would just configure the interface on their
> router that faces your LAN with a proper IP# for your LAN there would
> never have been a problem and this whole thread wounld't even exist.
>
> That's what I would still be fighting them over. It is silly for you to
> have to go through all this non-sense just because of their bull-headed
> lazyness. Sorry, I just have a hard time letting these things
> drop,...computers I can deal with,...humans,..sometimes I just want to
> slap 'em across the head.
>
> --
> Phillip Windell
> www.wandtv.com
>
> The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or
> Microsoft,
> or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>


You're right, this is a technical challenge that adds a complexity that will
be difficult or problematic to manage. Separate internal interfaces on the
router with each interface connected to their own switch for each respective
subnet would make more sense, otherwise I foresee difficulty managing this
setup as described.

Ace

Phillip Windell wrote:

> Your subnet is too big. You should be using /24.
> That is another "unrelated" debate for later.

I have far more hosts that a /24 could handle, and no, I don't want to split
subnets, the hosts belong to the same LAN and so I want them to be in the
same subnet. I will not change my mind about that (anyway if you have any
objection, fell free to expose them.. only fools never change their minds

> There is your Core Design flaw!

Yeah, I'll go through the classic DMZ way. Thanks for the time spent on my
issue.

"Vide" <> wrote in message
news:O$nTzJ$...

>> Your subnet is too big. You should be using /24.
>> That is another "unrelated" debate for later.
>
> I have far more hosts that a /24 could handle, and no, I don't want to
> split
> subnets, the hosts belong to the same LAN and so I want them to be in the
> same subnet.

That,...is just not even close to being a good reason.

> I will not change my mind about that (anyway if you have any
> objection, fell free to expose them.. only fools never change their minds
>

There is no point in me explaining why that is a bad I dea if you aren't
willing to listen. It would be a waste of my time and would probably just
"annoy" me.

But,....the Ethernet performance curve starts to dive after 250-300
hosts...and you would be adding full networks (/24),...you wouldn't be
splitting anything.

>> There is your Core Design flaw!
>
> Yeah, I'll go through the classic DMZ way. Thanks for the time spent on my
> issue.

Well, it isn't really a DMZ since there is no accompanying firewalling
(unless what you have been calling a "router" is really a firewall),..but
yes,..as far as the Topology goes it looks a little similar. But what you
are really doing is adding the additional segments that you said above that
you wouldn't do. You are effectively just adding the 10.1.1.0/24 segment to
your LAN with your router sitting between them.

--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

Like Mr. Windell, I too have a specific reason to have a DHCP supplied NIC that would be more than useful to have upon it an additional static IP.

Let me explain...

Within the facility are several high availability SAN environments utilizing UNIX based hardware. Like my desktop unit, the primary NIC on these redundant server pairs live on the house network and receive their IPs via DHCP. The manufacturer of these servers infused an IPMI interface on the same primary NIC interface via a dedicated ROM based OS. While IPMI can have many uses, the primary use here is for automated fail-over (power control). In as such, the IPMI addresses are static and setup as a subnet island (a tight subnet mask) so that random machines on the house network cannot inadvertently cause havoc. There are many times, however (remember IPMI's other uses?), where having access to IPMI's web-based console redirection or manual power control from a management station (such as my desk PC) is beneficial.

As has been previously stated, I could setup my desktop machine to be pure static but the reason for this writing is to present an argument for why Microsoft might want to implement such a feature. There are valid applications for such a feature, I've read quite a few now on different blogs. I know that the way it currently is, is the way it's always been but as a systems designer myself, I know that just because it's always been that way doesn't mean it has to stay that way. I know that I'm constantly evolving our appliance.

Regards,

Ron Earwood