NetBT Errors in Event Viewer - Event ID 4319

[TC10284]

"A duplicate name has been detected on the TCP network. The IP address of the machine that sent the message is in the data. Use nbtstat -n in a command window to see which name is in the Conflict state."

I have done an nbtstat -n and I get these results:


C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>nbtstat -n

Local Area Connection:
Node IpAddress: [192.168.2.6] Scope Id: []

NetBIOS Local Name Table

Name Type Status
---------------------------------------------
SERVER <00> UNIQUE Registered
SERVER <20> UNIQUE Registered
BRIGHTMOORNURSI<00> GROUP Registered
BRIGHTMOORNURSI<1C> GROUP Registered
BRIGHTMOORNURSI<1B> UNIQUE Registered
BRIGHTMOORNURSI<1E> GROUP Registered
BRIGHTMOORNURSI<1D> UNIQUE Registered
..__MSBROWSE__.<01> GROUP Registered
INet~Services <1C> GROUP Registered
IS~SERVER......<00> UNIQUE Registered

Local Area Connection 2:
Node IpAddress: [192.168.2.5] Scope Id: []

NetBIOS Local Name Table

Name Type Status
---------------------------------------------
SERVER <00> UNIQUE Registered
SERVER <20> UNIQUE Registered
BRIGHTMOORNURSI<00> GROUP Registered
BRIGHTMOORNURSI<1C> GROUP Registered
BRIGHTMOORNURSI<1B> UNIQUE Registered
BRIGHTMOORNURSI<1E> GROUP Registered
INet~Services <1C> GROUP Registered
IS~SERVER......<00> UNIQUE Registered

This server has two onboard Intel NICs. I believe this server was multihomed at one time (didn't set it up - I came in to work on it after the previous company's services were cancelled). Either that, or one NIC was used as the gateway and one was for the LAN.

Is there anything I can do to fix this?

 

[RebateMonger]

Actually, I'm seeing the identical error on one of my SBS 2003 Servers. I've fixed this error message before on another SBS 2003 Server, but I have to remember how I did it. I do recall that, before, the nbstat -n command actually SHOWED a conflict as an "conflict" entry. Your nbstat result (and mine), isn't showing that error.

There's a discussion about conflicts in NetBIOS registrations in this UseNet thread. That thread indicates the "problem" could be as simple as having the same person logged onto two machines at once (which is, obviously, harmless).

Further reading indicates this type of error might happen if you have an "unused" NIC that's enabled. Every SBS box I set up is multi-homed and any unused NICs are disabled. I'm wondering if my new client's SBS box is only using one of the built-in NICs. I haven't had time to go over everything on that new server yet.

Here's a UseNet thread where an SBS administrator inserted a third NIC (for load balancing), and started getting an error that's identical to what you and I are seeing. Removing that third NIC made the error go away.

 

[TC10284]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
Actually, I'm seeing the identical error on one of my SBS 2003 Servers. I've fixed this error message before on another SBS 2003 Server, but I have to remember how I did it. I do recall that, before, the nbstat -n command actually SHOWED a conflict as an "conflict" entry. Your nbstat result (and mine), isn't showing that error.

Yea, that's what I don't understand. It says there is a conflict but doesn't show up in nbtstat.

There's a discussion about conflicts in NetBIOS registrations in this UseNet thread. That thread indicates the "problem" could be as simple as having the same person logged onto two machines at once (which is, obviously, harmless).

Further reading indicates this type of error might happen if you have an "unused" NIC that's enabled. Every SBS box I set up is multi-homed and any unused NICs are disabled. I'm wondering if my new client's SBS box is only using one of the built-in NICs. I haven't had time to go over everything on that new server yet.

Here's a UseNet thread where an SBS administrator inserted a third NIC (for load balancing), and started getting an error that's identical to what you and I are seeing. Removing that third NIC made the error go away.

Basically, all I wanted the second NIC to do was stay enabled incase one would happen to fail or go flaky, since this is a DNS/AD server. I'm thinking, if there are no noticeable problems in Windows other than event viewer errors, I'm probably going to ignore it.

 

[RebateMonger]

I really doubt it's doing any harm. But I don't see the advantage of keeping the NIC enabled if you aren't using it. It only takes two seconds to re-enable a NIC.

 

[spidey07]

If you use more than one NIC you will get this message. Normally a bad idea to have more than one NIC/IP address on a windows box. It screws up name resolution.

If you're looking for fault tolerance get NICs that support teaming - this way the OS is only aware of a single NIC and the drivers handle the failover so nothing gets out of whack with name tables, network/arp tables, etc.

 

[TC10284]

I'm using three NICs (two onboard gigabit, one onboard Wifi) in my main box with Vista Business edition without this error message. I've also looked at other servers with multiple NICs without this error.

If those Intel NICs on this server support teaming, how would I configure this?
Is there a way a configure it in Vista on my main box?

 

[RebateMonger]

OK, I see one problem on MY client's SBS 2003 Server that's giving the NBT errors. And you have the same "problem". I missed it earlier.

The previous Administrator has both Intel NICs on the same Subnet. He said he was using Static Routes to tell the SBS Server how to get places. But I wouldn't be surprised if SBS is complaining about the addressing schema for those two NICs. I see that YOUR SBS Server has the same issue (two NICs on the same Subnet). Not really a good idea.

One of my NICs is at 192.168.1.253 / 24
The other NIC is at 192.168.1.254 /24

PLUS, there are two different Default Gateways on my Server! One is a local box (presumably a router) and the other is a Public IP address. Ouch!

The previous System Administrator just left last week to take a job with Microsoft, but he's a software guy and not a hardware guy. Obviously.

This is kinda' messed up. I wish I hadn't looked. Fortunately, it DOES work. So it's not an emergency.

 

[TC10284]

Interesting...

I can tell you that the default gateway on both NICs SHOULD be the same (192.168.2.1)

I may just leave it unless someting happens. That or try to get an Intel driver that allows teaming. Except I'd rather do it on-site and not remotely (which is how I do most of the work now because I am working with someone that has a contract to maintain the server/workstations)