Running two different networks on same pc.
I have two nic cards in my desktop. I want to use one for internet connetion and the other for connection to my cisco phone lab. Which ever one is hooked up to the internet is getting an ip address but the one going to my cisco router isnt. I have dhcp set on my router. Even when i use a manual ip address i cant reach any of my phone lab.
Can you send me the configuration of your IP telephony LAB as well the internet network card.
You're saying you're not getting IP address from your router, are your PC directly connected to the router or to a SW. If connected directly to the router, do you have auto mdix, or you're using cross cable.
If it's connected to SW, did you configure Vlan's or your just using 1 Vlan.
Please send me the network diagram with IP's and configuration
You're saying you're not getting IP address from your router, are your PC directly connected to the router or to a SW. If connected directly to the router, do you have auto mdix, or you're using cross cable.
If it's connected to SW, did you configure Vlan's or your just using 1 Vlan.
Please send me the network diagram with IP's and configuration
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
I'd agree with omarfarid - it shouild work as described.
Well, you likely won't have an (Internet) GATEWAY address entry on the NIC to the phone system. That would be blank.
But, once it's on the phone network, then it should just work.
I don't see any need for special routing.
Presumably you aren't trying to make your computer the internet gateway for the phone network, eh?
You can fairly well prove all this by running command prompt:
route print
... and read the results. All the necessary routes should be there without entering any.
Well, you likely won't have an (Internet) GATEWAY address entry on the NIC to the phone system. That would be blank.
But, once it's on the phone network, then it should just work.
I don't see any need for special routing.
Presumably you aren't trying to make your computer the internet gateway for the phone network, eh?
You can fairly well prove all this by running command prompt:
route print
... and read the results. All the necessary routes should be there without entering any.
All the necessary routes should be there without entering any.Not true if networks are not directly connected (Lab network is not in the same subnet as network card).
If subnet is not the same as it is on the network card (the same broadcast domain), for proper traffic routing additional routes will need to be configured, otherwise best matching route on network card willl be default route, so traffic to lab will be forwarded in internet direction.
But anyway are you able to ping router interface from desktop (is interface up)?
@Predrag I agree with you, you're right a static route is required, since in windows/Linux it's impossible to set 2 default gateways on the same device(it's not a router), so in his case he set the default gateway for the outside NIC, therefore a static route is required for the second NIC.
If I said it wrong then I'd like to know:
Where is the "static route" for the second NIC to be entered?
In the Windows routes with the second NIC as the interface?
I had thought that would happen without intervention....
Best to state it literally like:
route add -p 192.168.12.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.13.7 metric 3
(if that's what's intended).
As far as the router on the phone system i.e. its gateway, there's no need for a route to a NIC that's on the same network (i.e. his PC's second NIC) UNLESS one needs to use it as a gateway to the first LAN subnet.
I'm afraid I'm missing something pretty basic..... sorry.
Where is the "static route" for the second NIC to be entered?
In the Windows routes with the second NIC as the interface?
I had thought that would happen without intervention....
Best to state it literally like:
route add -p 192.168.12.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.13.7 metric 3
(if that's what's intended).
As far as the router on the phone system i.e. its gateway, there's no need for a route to a NIC that's on the same network (i.e. his PC's second NIC) UNLESS one needs to use it as a gateway to the first LAN subnet.
I'm afraid I'm missing something pretty basic..... sorry.
@fred
Yes you enter it on CMD and you choose the destination network and also the gateway(Router IP address
Yes you enter it on CMD and you choose the destination network and also the gateway(Router IP address
Best to state it literally like:Exactly. On the first network card he uses the default gateway to access the internet and on the second he add on CMD a similar route to the one you stated but sure different gateway and destination network
route add -p 192.168.12.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.13.7 metric 3
Elie Matar: OK. So what does that command look like?
Suppose:
"Internet LAN" = 192.168.1.0/24 and NIC IP = 192.168.1.99 Gateway = 192.168.1.1
"Phone LAN" = 10.10.10.0/34 and NIC IP = 10.10.10.99 Gateway = [blank]
route add -p 10.10.10.0 mask 255.255.255.0 10.10.10.99 metric 3
This seems redundant to me because I believe this route will already be there.
As I see it, packets destined for hosts on 10.10.10.0/24 will be sent out via 10.10.10.99 onto the phone LAN wire.
No added route needed.
Then, return packets addressed to 10.10.10.99 will come directly on the wire.
Predrag: I don't understand: "otherwise best matching route on network card willl be default route, so traffic to lab will be forwarded in internet direction. " I guess this would be true if the route I expect to see isn't there.... ??
Suppose:
"Internet LAN" = 192.168.1.0/24 and NIC IP = 192.168.1.99 Gateway = 192.168.1.1
"Phone LAN" = 10.10.10.0/34 and NIC IP = 10.10.10.99 Gateway = [blank]
route add -p 10.10.10.0 mask 255.255.255.0 10.10.10.99 metric 3
This seems redundant to me because I believe this route will already be there.
As I see it, packets destined for hosts on 10.10.10.0/24 will be sent out via 10.10.10.99 onto the phone LAN wire.
No added route needed.
Then, return packets addressed to 10.10.10.99 will come directly on the wire.
Predrag: I don't understand: "otherwise best matching route on network card willl be default route, so traffic to lab will be forwarded in internet direction. " I guess this would be true if the route I expect to see isn't there.... ??
but the one going to my cisco router
Not true if networks are not directly connected (Lab network is not in the same subnet as network card)Since network card is connected to router (not switch) my assumption (maybe wrong assumption) that lab has different network range than what is configured on second network card.
Example topology:
According to host routing table (I am ignoring rest of defaults in routing table for simplicity):
- traffic to network ranges 192.168.0.0/24 and 10.0.0.0/24 would be switched
- all other traffic would be sent to default gateway and then forwarded to internet
In above design to reach network 10.0.10.0/24 static route needs to be configured.
route add -p 10.0.10.0 mask 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.1 metric 250
I hope this helps.
routing is besides the point at this stage.
dhcp should work and provide an ip before any routing is involved.
my guess is you are not plugged to the same vlan as the dhcp server. can't tell you more without an idea of the setup.
a static route will be required if you traverse a router to reach the lab. you can and probably should configure the dhcp server to push that route.
dhcp should work and provide an ip before any routing is involved.
my guess is you are not plugged to the same vlan as the dhcp server. can't tell you more without an idea of the setup.
a static route will be required if you traverse a router to reach the lab. you can and probably should configure the dhcp server to push that route.
The reason why routing is mentioned as possible root cause is
Even when i use a manual ip address i cant reach any of my phone lab.So DHCP can be ignored here (maybe DHCP is not correctly configured), so I am treating it as irrelevant, separate issue. Also it could be that interface is down, bad network card drivers are whatever (I also assumed that author was able to ping router from desktop, which also may be wrong assumption) ... and author did not provide more details afterwards...
Pedrag Jovic: Great diagram!
It seems to me that assigning 10.0.0.0 / 255.255.255.0 to the 2nd NIC would be an error.
What should be there would be 10.0.10.150.
The assumption that there's a router with a VLAN seems arbitrary.
A router *is* likely but the simplest configuration seems appropriate to discuss.
I concur that DHCP is tangential.
It seems to me that assigning 10.0.0.0 / 255.255.255.0 to the 2nd NIC would be an error.
What should be there would be 10.0.10.150.
The assumption that there's a router with a VLAN seems arbitrary.
A router *is* likely but the simplest configuration seems appropriate to discuss.
I concur that DHCP is tangential.
What should be there would be 10.0.10.150.Not really - 10.0.0.1 is next hop address (router interface IP address), while 10.0.10.150 is local IP address.
In routing table on picture line
10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 on-link 10.0.0.150 291
should be read as:
network 10.0.0.0/24 is directly connect through local IP address 10.0.0.150 and administrative distance is 291
Adding static route on host:
route add -p 10.0.10.0 mask 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.1 metric 250
It is the same as static route on router:
ip route 10.0.10.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.1
translation:
network 10.0.10.0/24 is reachable through next hop IP address 10.0.0.1
Pedrag Jovic: I can see and understand all that.
What I don't understand is why.
I guess you've extrapolated the words: "but the one going to my cisco router isnt " and are giving a possible condition?
All I get from those words is that there is no DHCP on the Cisco router.
You've assumed there are 2 VLANs on the Cisco router, right?
If so, then yes, there would need to be a route on the router.
But, I don't see that bostonstaus has revealed anything like that setup.
What I don't understand is why.
I guess you've extrapolated the words: "but the one going to my cisco router isnt " and are giving a possible condition?
All I get from those words is that there is no DHCP on the Cisco router.
You've assumed there are 2 VLANs on the Cisco router, right?
If so, then yes, there would need to be a route on the router.
But, I don't see that bostonstaus has revealed anything like that setup.
Author did not provide enough details and I have filled gaps from details that are available.
If lab devices are in the same network range as second network card - traffic should just work with static IP address (if L1 is looking good). So, ignoring DHCP can be done since static IP was assigned.
Yes, I extrapolated those words.
Router is L3 device - reason to have router and not switch is to have L3 connection between networks which will require static route on source host to properly route traffic to destination network (desktop needs to know that next hop for destinaton network is reachable via second network card). With static route desktop should be able to ping 10.0.10.1 since router has route to source and destination networks (10.0.0.0/24 and 10.0.10/24)
Router may not support VLANs, but similar to that are 2 network ranges present on router interfaces, however design could be more complicated than topology that i provided and additional routing may need to be configured (but router does not require additonal routes in the above topology if lab network is 10.0.10.0/24 - directly connected to router) and routing is enabled on router.
But, as I said before my assumptions may be wrong. Above is just my best guess from details that author provided and reason why traffic from desktop may fail to reach lab network with assumption that L1 is working correctly and that IP addresses on router, desktop and lab devices are correctly configured.
And.. I have already assumed and typed too much. 😀
If lab devices are in the same network range as second network card - traffic should just work with static IP address (if L1 is looking good). So, ignoring DHCP can be done since static IP was assigned.
Yes, I extrapolated those words.
Router is L3 device - reason to have router and not switch is to have L3 connection between networks which will require static route on source host to properly route traffic to destination network (desktop needs to know that next hop for destinaton network is reachable via second network card). With static route desktop should be able to ping 10.0.10.1 since router has route to source and destination networks (10.0.0.0/24 and 10.0.10/24)
Router may not support VLANs, but similar to that are 2 network ranges present on router interfaces, however design could be more complicated than topology that i provided and additional routing may need to be configured (but router does not require additonal routes in the above topology if lab network is 10.0.10.0/24 - directly connected to router) and routing is enabled on router.
But, as I said before my assumptions may be wrong. Above is just my best guess from details that author provided and reason why traffic from desktop may fail to reach lab network with assumption that L1 is working correctly and that IP addresses on router, desktop and lab devices are correctly configured.
And.. I have already assumed and typed too much. 😀
Pedrag Jovic: Thank you.
Generally I don't consider "chats" within question responses to be appropriate. But in this case, I hope we did bostonstaus some good, eh?
bostonstaus hasn't responded. It would be good to get an update and a bit of clarification re: what we've been illuminating.
Generally I don't consider "chats" within question responses to be appropriate. But in this case, I hope we did bostonstaus some good, eh?
bostonstaus hasn't responded. It would be good to get an update and a bit of clarification re: what we've been illuminating.
Even when i use a manual ip address i cant reach any of my phone lab.
assuming the above diagram looks like yours, you would need to set an address in the 10.0.0/24 network rather than directly into 10.0.10/24. and the route mentioned on the post with the schema. maybe you expected to use an ip in the phone lan directly ?
ASKER
There are 3 vlans on the router. One for Data, One for Mgmt, and one for Voice. I am working on getting a network diagram.
which network are you connected to on the second interface ?
if it is the phone network, it shoud work providing you use a free ip in that network.
if it is a different one, it should work providing you use a free ip in that network and configure the adequate route using the router's address in the connected network. refer to @pedrag's diagram in that case
if it is the phone network, it shoud work providing you use a free ip in that network.
if it is a different one, it should work providing you use a free ip in that network and configure the adequate route using the router's address in the connected network. refer to @pedrag's diagram in that case
Send us the network diagram to help you solving the problem
ASKER
Pedrag, what did you use to make that topology map?
Microsoft Visio
What is the pc OS?
Did you try to swap the connections?