• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Can this be done?

L

LuckyTaxi

Diamond Member
I have a workstation @ work that primarly accesses a netware 4.2 server. There's an NT network connected to
corporate, and this is also our internet connection. Is there a way I can get this particular workstation onto
the Microsoft network, while being able to connect to Novell? The workstation has two NIC (previously had
DSL, but DSL is not available at the new location), so I was thinking about connecting the one NIC to
the Novell switch and the other NIC to the microsoft switch. Make sure I bind things correctly. Can this be done?
 
Are you saying the M$ and NW networks are physically separate networks? 😕

We run a multi-platform, multi-protocol shop and ALL our machines access both M$ and NW, using only 1 NIC.
So, yeah, I'd say it's not only possible, but fairly straightforward.
 
If they're on the same network you don't need 2 NICs. just install Client Services for Netware and make sure it is bound to the NIC. You should have no problem.
 
Sorry forgot to mention they are two separate networks. Corporate IT doesn't want IPX and IP on the same network, therefore we had to isolate the two networks. Only 9 workstations are connected to the Novell network. Those poor ppl do not have access to the internet/email like the other 25 people.

Anyways, can this be done with two NICs being it that there are two separate swithces.
 


<< Corporate IT doesn't want IPX and IP on the same network >>

Would like to hear the reasoning behind that...:disgust:
If your IT group has that kind of fux0red thinking, I'm betting that anyone putting the same machine on two networks that IT intentionally kept physically separate is gonna piss them off in a completely irrational way.

Besides, anyone running just IPX wouldn't be able to access Internet services anyway without loading IP as well.
 
yea but if she has two NICs, can I use this as a workaround? I tried getting DSL for her (office manager's PC), but it isn't offered at
the new location. She's also the billing manager, and the billing program runs on Novell.

The goons @ Florida says they do not want the IPX and IP protocols together. Too much traffic they say. So, for now, the office manager is stuck with 56k access. I feel bad for her cuz if she was on DSL or better yet the network, she can access stuff that she needs to do, rather than using someone else's PC.
 
Should be no problem. My employer runs three separate networks. A Novell NW, An MS and a peer to peer Win 9x. There are interconnects to access shared resources. The peer to peer has access to the MS but not the NW. The NW clients have access to all resources on all networks and the MS clients can access the NW resources. They currently use a 3Com 56K Lan Modem for Internet access (will be upgrading to satellite in the near future (Tachyon I think)) All PC's can access the net throught the 3Com except the peer to peer which has it's own modem/POTS connection with ICS. (Yeah, I know it's a cobbled together mish-mash.)

You should have no prob connecting the second NIC to the NW switch/hub and using the NW resources. Again, it's all a matter of bindings and protocols.
 
dog is correct, you can set it up like this:

Network CP
NIC1->IPX->NetWare Client
NIC2->IP->Microsoft Client

That way, traffic from each protocol will only go out its respective NIC.

The BIG drawback to this is the harebrained way certain M$ OS's deal with any change to the Network settings.
After carefully "tuning" a PC's Network settings, the OS will at times bind every available protocol to every available adapter and every available client. Only certain operations do this, but it took me FOREVER to get my techs straight on checking and double-checking this.

Which brings me to my peeve about your setup (don't get me wrong, this isn't directed at you, but rather, at your doofus IT clerics):
Except in *very* RARE circumstances, no client PC should ever need 2 NICs. The beauty of networking is that it allows you to send whatever the hell protocol you want, whenever you want, wherever you have the proper infrastructure. Because protocols are largely transparent, at least from layers 3 on down (of course, not completely transparent, as spidey, ScottMac, L3, and others will be likely to say....but don't stop me guys, I'm on a roll), the proper place for management of multi-protocol data transmission should be handled in the wiring closet by the infrastructure, not at end-user dektops.

Let me back up by saying...I never like to pass judgement on anyone else's network (mainly 'cause I hate it when someone tries to tell me about MY networks without knowing anything about them), and I don't know the whole story with your company's setup, but it sounds to me like your IT group is spending double the money (by duplicating networking hardware) with no increase in functionality.

I don't see the logic in a "too much traffic" argument. If there is too much contention for not enough bandwidth, then look at policy-based networking or an infrastructure upgrade, rather than pay for "another" network that will inevitably be filled up, usually more sooner than later.

If they are worried about "chatty" IPX broadcasts flying over their WAN links or some such nonsense, they ought to be fired. "Spoofing" broadcasts and configuring lists of services and resources have been around since the good old days of NetWare 3 (1986 anyone?) And if they violated standard design practice...aw hell, gonna quit 'cause nothing pisses me off more than IT stupidity. We have a tough enough time getting folks to take us seriously without all the Dilbert and Nick Burns wannabes
 
I totally agree with you man. These ppl make me sick. It's not my network in general, but I try my best to make my immediate network run smoothly. For one I would run DHCP and not static. At times I forget who has what address, and it would make sense if we had gone with DHCP. Second, our IP schemes suck. Desktops start with .21 and then my printers start @ .10 and then @ .98. NO god damn reason why this was done. It's sooooo stupid.

Anyways, I will give it a try tomorrow. I may have to reinstall her PC cuz it's messed up really bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top