benefits of usin win2k3 as router?

[mmx]

We have a cisco 871 router, but the company was already organized running the dhcp through win2k3. Is it better to have the Cisco run the routing? or the win2k3?

The office is small, about 4-6 people work. We have one server(win2k3) which is also the file server. the printer has its own network card. We have a t1 - but it feels slow. Looking to upgrade too.

 

[Nothinman]

I don't think anyone ever seriously considers using Windows for a gateway router. I'd hazard a guess that even any place that uses ISA server for proxying also have a firewall in front of it and a router in front of that since everything except for the cheapo SOHO crap routers and firewalls are separate devices.

 

[RebateMonger]

Actually, there are lots of small businesses using Server 2003 as the gateway router and as the DHCP and DNS servers. That has been Microsoft's recommended network topology for Microsoft SBS Servers for years.

I like to keep things simple, and adding hardware gives just one more thing to break and troubleshoot. Small clients don't want to spend a lot of money on configuration and troubleshooting. Heck. 95 percent of the time, the client doesn't even know their router/firewall's password. Server 2003's DHCP is very easy to use and configure and has been trouble-free in my experience.

Most of the small offices that I do, and those that are done by most other Microsoft Small Business Specialists, use SBS 2003 with ISA Server 2004 installed set up in two-NIC mode. All Internet traffic must pass though the ISA Server proxy server. There may or may not be a front-end firewall or router, depending on the client and their needs.

 

[drebo]

Originally posted by: mmx
running the dhcp through win2k3

Just because DHCP comes from the Server 2k3 box does not mean that the 2k3 box is your gateway. In fact, it is recommended to run Server 2k3 as your DHCP server in an Active Directory scenario, and there are other benefits as well...such as greater control over DHCP options and easier implementation of RRAS.

I would bet money that your Cisco 871 is actually your gateway, despite the fact that your Server 2k3 box issues your DHCP.

As far as your T1 goes...T1s are 1.5mbps, up and down. They don't feel slow, they ARE slow. If you really need the symmetric connection (do you have a lot of VPN clients/are you running any public servers/etc) some companies, such as Arrival Communications, can bond SDSL circuits together. We have a customer doing this, and it works well. Alternatively, other providers can bond T1s together in what they call "multimeg". Arrival can go up to 10mbit with that, I believe.

If a symmetric connection is not necessary, you can go with a business class DSL service with static IP addresses. AT&T has 6mb/768kb in my area with 5 static IPs for like $80/mo...which is a LOT cheaper than a T1 anyway.

It all depends on your particular needs. If you're not sure, you should hire an outside technology company to take a look at it and do it right.

 

[Nothinman]

Actually, there are lots of small businesses using Server 2003 as the gateway router and as the DHCP and DNS servers. That has been Microsoft's recommended network topology for Microsoft SBS Servers for years.

Of course MS is going to recommend a setup like that since they don't sell routers or firewalls.

I also see lots of small businesses that have no clue how any of their systems work, no security in place, personal use of business resources/vice versa, etc but that doesn't mean that any of it's a good idea. And on top of that the case of not wanting to spend money on the extra hardware is irrelevant here because the OP says they already have a router. Ideally they would also have a separate firewall between the router and rest of the network but I'd probably choose a router with the firewall feature-set over Windows almost any day. Actually if it came down to it I'd probably find the cheapest PC that I could and build a Linux or OpenBSD firewall before putting a Windows box directly on the Internet with or without ISA Server on it.

I like to keep things simple, and adding hardware gives just one more thing to break and troubleshoot.

Testing a firewall or router's functionality is dead simple compared to anything on Windows and the debugging facilities in IOS are a lot better. Add on to that the fact that once a Cisco router/firewall it keeps running that way until the hardware dies and since the local people at the small business likely know nothing about IOS they won't be able to even log in to break things. But with an ISA server it's all Windows so they assume it's easy and will be a lot more likely to log in and mess around.

Server 2003's DHCP is very easy to use and configure and has been trouble-free in my experience.

No doubt, DHCP is a dead simple protocol so it's pretty hard to muck up. And I'd recommend leaving DHCP and DNS on the Windows server in this case, those things don't belong on a router or firewall.

 

[spikespiegal]

Small clients don't want to spend a lot of money on configuration and troubleshooting.

Those same small clients don't get what a nightmare it is and how much it will cost to trouble-shoot ISA and RRAS when it breaks.

I've made it clear in other posts I'm hardly a Cisco fanboy, but there are jillions of hardware products on the market that are cheaper and far easier to manage.

DNS / DHCP belongs on the Windows box - agreed. Anything more complicated than a few Add Route entries should be avoided on windows.