Simplify / improve? testbed Hyper-V network connection setup

Fred Marshall
Fred Marshall used Ask the Experts™
on
I asked a question some time ago that was about a Server testbed I set up.
It's still up and running and useful.
But I perhaps went about setting the static IP addresses on the Server VMs in an overly complicated and dysfunctional way.
So, I'd like to try once more to make it more "conventional".
The network diagram is attached.

The VM setup was the original concern.  But I also notice something in the Hyper-V machine interface.  So, I'll start with that:
There is a physical interface getting 192.168.13.103 via DHCP AND a virtual interface with static IP 192.168.13.4.  Is that normal or is that odd?  I wouldn't think that having two IP addresses used up would be normal.  BOTH interfaces have the same MAC address.

Now, on to the VMs:
There's a dual-NIC PCI card.
The physical NICs have no configuration.
The virtual NICs are configured with static addresses and have been manually assigned the MAC addresses from the physical NICs they relate to (presumably that's the overkill?)
If this is wrong, then how might I change it so things will continue to work?  I don't think that removing the MAC addresses from the VMs did the trick the first time I tried it.
Testbed-Configuration-2019_06_28.pdf
Comment
Watch Question

Do more with

Expert Office
EXPERT OFFICE® is a registered trademark of EXPERTS EXCHANGE®
Technical Architect - HA/Compute/Storage
Commented:
We always team the ports with a preference for at least four ports. Two for the host management team and two dedicated to the virtual switch.

There is no reason to dedicate a physical port to a virtual machine. Virtualisation provides an abstraction layer between the guest OS and the hardware. So start there.

Essentially, it is rare that we require more than one virtual switch on a Hyper-V host.

EDIT: I just noticed all of the subnets. Why?

If the physical switch is managed, then put the production management on one VLAN/Subnet, the Hyper-V host on another VLAN/Subnet, and any "tenant" guests on another. We have some clients that leave the default VLAN 1 empty for security reasons with any switch ports not being used left untagged VLAN 1 for same.

Most of our smaller clients are on one subnet 255.255.255.0 (192.168.50.0/24) or in some cases 255.255.254.0 (10.10.50.0/23) for extra IP addresses.

I have two very thorough EE articles on all things Hyper-V:

Some Hyper-V Hardware and Software Best Practices
Practical Hyper-V Performance Expectations

Author

Commented:
Philip Elder:  
I just noticed all of the subnets. Why?
This is a testbed that represents the structure of an existing 3-site/3-subnet production system.  In the case of the testbed, it only replicates a 2-"site"/2-subnet version since that's sufficient to test all of the mechanisms in use - or planned to be in use.

The inter-site link uses what I call an "interim subnet" (192.168.100.0/24) in order to access the inter-site links with a single interface per site and to route between subnets.
Inter-site/inter-subnet communication is a bit involved in the current peer-to-peer network - so the testbed is intended to demonstrate that our incremental approach to DC introduction in the production system is reasonably proven before implementation.

The Hyper-V platform is connected into my existing subnet structure - which could be separate as it is here.

The physical NICs represent physical NICs that are geographically separated and on different subnets in the real world system.  

The VMs represent DCs that will be geographically separated in the planned real world system (and in that case, there will be multiple Hyper-V platforms).  
But here, 2 DCs is adequate so they are supported on a single Hyper-V platform but with distinct physical NICs for the simulation.


Thanks for the link on Hyper-V articles!
Philip ElderTechnical Architect - HA/Compute/Storage

Commented:
Suggestion: Look into WANEm (WAN Emulator).

Set up in a VM it can provide real world ISP/WAN link conditions.

Would it be helpful?

Author

Commented:
Philip Elder:  Thanks for that.  In this case, there is no WAN involvement really.  Just normal web access and not too important except for updates, etc. as we go along with the testbed work.  No WAN traffic being simulated.

Author

Commented:
Thanks!!

Do more with

Expert Office
Submit tech questions to Ask the Experts™ at any time to receive solutions, advice, and new ideas from leading industry professionals.

Start 7-Day Free Trial