Mikey said:
They are looking to connect all hosts to the core network via 1 NIC.
They generally refer to this as the Public network. The second NIC
will connect to another switch and this network is considered the
Private network. They plan to totally isolate the Private network.
It will have no connection to the core network and the only route off
of the Private network will be via the hosts connected to it.
Well, I'm not totally sure what you are describing, but what parts of
it I think I understand,...I don't like. I just don't like multi-homed
servers except for routers, nat boxes, and proxys,...I guess it is
almost a "religious" thing for me
.
concerned about....and that is that some traffic is going to use the
adapter listed first in the connection order. Can you give me some
examples of when that might occur?
Not sure how it applies in this case,...partly because I am still
unsure what this case is.
And, would it not be better to connect all hosts via one NIC to the
second switch and then connect that switch to the core network? That
way....all hosts only use one adapter and all the traffic is
seperated from the core switch. It just seems to me it would be
better doing that and allow the switches to control the data
flows....expecially since the core switch is a layer 3 Cisco 6509.
The multihoming, to me, just doesn't seem to be worth the trouble.
Speaking in general...the only time any machine should have two active
Nics is when the machine is built to be a Router, a NAT Firewall, or a
Proxy Server. There is also "Nic Teaming", but that is "third party"
and not a function of, nor an "ability" of any Windows OS. But it is
possible to have several duel Nic Servers that do *not* have "routing"
enabled and simply "live" on two networks at the same time. There
will still be a "default network" that is reflected by the machine's
Default Gateway (the subnet that is in). Usually the Nic that is a
member of that same subnet would also be the first in the binding
order (but maybe not always).
That may not help much, but it is the best I can do with what little I
know about what you are doing.
By-the-way, the Cisco 6509, I believe, is a switch and router combined
into the same device. We use a similar HP device. To avoid confusion,
refer to it as a Router instead of a switch unless you are referring
specifically and only to the Layer2 functionality. I know what it is
because I run something similar but others will probably get tripped
up on that. Anytime you are dealing with IP#s, networks, and subnets
[all Layer3 terms] then the 6509 is a "router". If you are dealing
with MAC addresses and hosts within the same subnet [Layer2 concepts],
then the 6509 is a "switch".