MeanJim
asked on
Bridging 2 separate networks, same location
Hello all.
I feel like I should know this, but I don't.
I have 2 separate networks in the same building.
Each has its own internet connection with static IP and an Untangle Server running as a router. Each has its own SBS2008 server running DHCP, DNS, Exchange, IIS web app, SQL database, etc..
One network is 192.168.0.x and the other is 192.168.10.x.
We need the 2 networks to communicate with each other quickly.
I have a site-to-site VPN with the Untangle Servers' OpenVPN. It works, but running RDP or terminal services across the network is painfully slow. I'm getting lots of complaints.
Also we have an IP phone system on the 10.x network, and if phone is plugged into the 0.x network, the phone "cuts out". Right now all phones are plugged into the 10.x network, but that requires 2 ports for every desk that should only be on the 0.x network.
I'm assuming most of the problems are due to the slow internet connections, a 2mbps DSL on each side.
We have a 48 port PoE switch and a 24 port gigabit switch on each network. We're running out of ports on the PoE switch on the 10.x network, since both sides have their phones connecting through that switch.
Since both networks are in the same building (all cables meet in the same server room), shouldn't I be able to use some kind of "bridge" and scrap the site-to-site VPN? It seems to me I should be able to connect these 2 networks at gigabit speed instead of 2mbps tops.
Also, are there some unintended consequences to bridging the networks? I do not want a DHCP, DNS, or Exchange nightmare.
I feel like I should know this, but I don't.
I have 2 separate networks in the same building.
Each has its own internet connection with static IP and an Untangle Server running as a router. Each has its own SBS2008 server running DHCP, DNS, Exchange, IIS web app, SQL database, etc..
One network is 192.168.0.x and the other is 192.168.10.x.
We need the 2 networks to communicate with each other quickly.
I have a site-to-site VPN with the Untangle Servers' OpenVPN. It works, but running RDP or terminal services across the network is painfully slow. I'm getting lots of complaints.
Also we have an IP phone system on the 10.x network, and if phone is plugged into the 0.x network, the phone "cuts out". Right now all phones are plugged into the 10.x network, but that requires 2 ports for every desk that should only be on the 0.x network.
I'm assuming most of the problems are due to the slow internet connections, a 2mbps DSL on each side.
We have a 48 port PoE switch and a 24 port gigabit switch on each network. We're running out of ports on the PoE switch on the 10.x network, since both sides have their phones connecting through that switch.
Since both networks are in the same building (all cables meet in the same server room), shouldn't I be able to use some kind of "bridge" and scrap the site-to-site VPN? It seems to me I should be able to connect these 2 networks at gigabit speed instead of 2mbps tops.
Also, are there some unintended consequences to bridging the networks? I do not want a DHCP, DNS, or Exchange nightmare.
nwtechdesk
You have at least two separate issues here. Given that you want to use a single wire for pc and phone and that some pc's are on a different subnet the best answer is to put this all on the same subnet. This will not interfere with the domains. You will have to assgn a single DHCP and disable the other. The main DHCP should be 10.x since the phones will assign themselves. The 0.x system will have to use PC's w/ DHCP disabled and manually assigned the alternate server, dns and router.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Interesting responses.
We have two separate internet connections with public IPs and exchange servers, so I'm not putting them all on the same LAN and hard-coding all the IPs on half the computers and phones. The internet is slow enough as it is, so I don't want to put both networks behind the same internet connection.
The crossover cable between server NICs idea.... sounds like it would work, but isn't there some kind of device I could put between the switches that would accomplish this...... without mucking up the network properties on the servers? Both servers have 2 NICs in use already with virtual machines and Windows client-server VPNs already using them. I'm not comfortable adding a NIC and bridging them.
We have two separate internet connections with public IPs and exchange servers, so I'm not putting them all on the same LAN and hard-coding all the IPs on half the computers and phones. The internet is slow enough as it is, so I don't want to put both networks behind the same internet connection.
The crossover cable between server NICs idea.... sounds like it would work, but isn't there some kind of device I could put between the switches that would accomplish this...... without mucking up the network properties on the servers? Both servers have 2 NICs in use already with virtual machines and Windows client-server VPNs already using them. I'm not comfortable adding a NIC and bridging them.
can you give all routers and switches models? there are a chance with rip protocol, that could make both networks recognize them self and that way make them connect... still you will need to change dhcp configurations... depending on your Router Adsl/cable brand and model there's a big chance that you can connect a cable between both instead of adding a nic and bridging from server... You said...
Each has its own internet connection with static IP and an Untangle Server running as a router (which equipment have the underlined function?)
Each has its own internet connection with static IP and an Untangle Server running as a router (which equipment have the underlined function?)
With the scheme I'm suggestng, there would be two internet connections. Your 192.168.10.x would have a DHCP server but it would crowd all the phones and pc's onto a range of .2 - .100
Your secondary system would use 192.168.10.200 as your router, the server would be 192.168.10.201. The PC's using this system would not be able use DHCP but are easily configured. It is still one network but with two servers, two exchange servers, two routers.
Your secondary system would use 192.168.10.200 as your router, the server would be 192.168.10.201. The PC's using this system would not be able use DHCP but are easily configured. It is still one network but with two servers, two exchange servers, two routers.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Thank you all for your thought-provoking responses. I will let you know how it all goes.
ASKER
What I ended up doing....
I added a NIC to each Untangle server. I gave one the address 192.168.2.1 and the other 192.168.2.2. I connected them with a switch (didn't have and couldn't make a long enough cross-over cable at the time, but I'll eventually do that because I want my 8 port gig switch back), set up static routes and bypass rules in Untangle, shut down the VPN (on both Untangles), and there it went. I copied a 138MB file in less than 10 seconds from 1 LAN to the other. Haven't tried the phones yet from the other side, but feeling very confident.
Thanks for pushing me in the right direction!
I added a NIC to each Untangle server. I gave one the address 192.168.2.1 and the other 192.168.2.2. I connected them with a switch (didn't have and couldn't make a long enough cross-over cable at the time, but I'll eventually do that because I want my 8 port gig switch back), set up static routes and bypass rules in Untangle, shut down the VPN (on both Untangles), and there it went. I copied a 138MB file in less than 10 seconds from 1 LAN to the other. Haven't tried the phones yet from the other side, but feeling very confident.
Thanks for pushing me in the right direction!