|
|
![]() |
|
|
Top | #1 |
|
OSNN Junior Addict
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 4
Reputation: 0
Power: 0 |
We have a number of computers that are running Windows server 2003. On two of these machines I added an ip address in addition to the primary ip address assigned to the adapter. After adding the new ip address I tried pinging the ip address which was also successful. The problem is that when i say ping <name of the computer> the reply address is from the newly added ip address. I tried on another machine where it is returning the primary address For example computer name : backup Primary ip address:192.168.100.200 subnet : 255.255.255.0 secondary address:151.0.0.1 subnet : 255.255.255.0 now if if run the command ping backup i get a reply from 151.0.0.1 but on another machine with the same configuration (win 2003 server) computer name : backup Primary ip address:192.168.100.200 subnet : 255.255.255.0 secondary address:151.0.0.1 subnet : 255.255.255.0 when i run the command ping backup i get a reply from 192.168.100.200 All the ip-addresses specified above are local ip's Please let me know what has to be done so that I get the primary ip address of the machine when I ping the machine using its name instead of its secondary ip ie 192.168.100.200 instead of 151.0.0.1 Thanks in advance Regards Mathew |
|
|
|
|
|
Top | #2 |
|
Real Name No Gimmicks
Joined: January 2002
Posts: 421
Reputation: 40
Power: 130 |
Check the dns records on your dns server. You can create A-records for the IP adresses... for example:
Primary ip address:192.168.100.200 hostname server.domain.local Secondary address:151.0.0.1 hosname server_backup.domain.local The server probably updated it's dns record on the dns server, that's why the new IP is replying... |
|
|
|
|
|
Top | #3 |
|
The Last High
Joined: December 2001
Location: London
Posts: 18,510
Blog Entries: 51
Reputation: 3652
Power: 349 |
You need to open up the connection and under IP settings make sure the connection you want to corrospond to the dns name is the top entry or hit up the dns tab and specify it from there.
Could also open up your DNS server settings and manually speciify the IP/ |
|
|
|
|
|
Top | #4 |
|
Real Name No Gimmicks
Joined: January 2002
Posts: 421
Reputation: 40
Power: 130 |
I just re-read the post...
You added the 151.0.0.1 to the server's NIC and now you ping the server hostname "BACKUP" from two different machines; one is getting reply from the 192-address and the other from the 151-address? If the above is the case: Alter DNS config to have a hostname for the 151 AND the 192-address. On both clients run ipconfig /flushdns Then see if the names you specified in the DNS server are resolving as they should be using nslookup on the clients. |
|
|
|
|
|
Top | #5 |
|
OSNN Junior Addict
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 4
Reputation: 0
Power: 0 |
Thanks for all your suggestions . I think the question was not clear. I have edited the question
Regards Mathew |
|
|
|
|
|
Top | #6 |
|
OSNN Veteran Addict
Joined: April 2003
Location: In The Void
Posts: 6,373
Blog Entries: 9
Reputation: 1877
Power: 193 |
i tried doing something like this before and the only way i got around it was to use a different subnet mask on the 2nd ip
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top | #7 |
|
OSNN Junior Addict
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 4
Reputation: 0
Power: 0 |
hi everyone
actually i am testing the command <ping backup > on two machines named 'backup1' and 'backup2' the ip configuration is identical on both machines ie computer name : backup1 Primary ip address:192.168.100.200 subnet : 255.255.255.0 secondary address:151.0.0.1 subnet : 255.255.255.0 computer name : backup2 Primary ip address:192.168.100.200 subnet : 255.255.255.0 secondary address:151.0.0.1 subnet : 255.255.255.0 Please note that the computers used for testing are not in a network. when i execute the command 'ping backup1' on the machine named 'backup1' i get a reply from 151.0.0.1 when i execute the command 'ping backup2' on the machine named 'backup2' i get a reply from 192.168.100.200 on the machine named 'backup1' I need to get a reply from 192.168.100.200 instead of 151.0.0.1 from which I am currently getting the reply I hope my question is clear. Regards Mathew |
|
|
|
|
|
Top | #8 |
|
Godlike!
Joined: February 2004
Location: Salisbury, Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 7,031
Blog Entries: 5
Reputation: 4137
Power: 213 |
I think you need to look at getting a load balancer appliance or aquiring some VRRP software.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top | #9 |
|
OSNN Veteran Addict
Joined: April 2003
Location: In The Void
Posts: 6,373
Blog Entries: 9
Reputation: 1877
Power: 193 |
Originally Posted by mjk6035
how can both pcs have the same ip addresses?
i would try pc1 Primary ip address:192.168.100.200 subnet : 255.255.255.0 secondary address:151.0.0.1 subnet : 255.255.255.0 pc2 Primary ip address:192.168.100.201 subnet : 255.255.255.0 secondary address:151.0.0.2 subnet : 255.255.255.0 even then i reckon your going to have issues if the 151.0.0.* addresses are on the same subnet mask. you say they are not on a network do you mean they are connected via a cross over cable ? |
|
|
|
|
|
Top | #10 |
|
XPista7eopard*ix
Joined: April 2004
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 4,028
Reputation: 2947
Power: 168 |
i agree.. the original info doesn't really make sense as you've assigned the same name and ip info to both machines.. unless you are saying you turned off the first machine and assigned the same info to the second machine.
The two subnets should be on different networks.. the other question is from where are you pinging the computers from? I'm assuming you are pinging them from a seperate workstation.. |
|
|
|
|
|
Top | #11 |
|
OSNN Veteran Addict
Joined: April 2003
Location: In The Void
Posts: 6,373
Blog Entries: 9
Reputation: 1877
Power: 193 |
if like my setup - i have 2 nic cards in each pc and both are connected to a router, and to each other via cat6 cable, now although they are 2 different nics i cannot have them on the same subnet as i have the main inet connection on
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top | #12 |
|
XPista7eopard*ix
Joined: April 2004
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 4,028
Reputation: 2947
Power: 168 |
let's pull back and start with the basic question: what are you trying to do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top | #13 |
|
Spammer representing.
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 2,566
Blog Entries: 2
Reputation: 1630
Power: 136 |
You are wanting to bridge the connection for balancing network loads, or to create a interface for internal access only.
Use your hosts file to specify what IP belongs to what name, the use a "nbtstat -R" command to refresh your hosts file. |
|
|
|
|
|
Top | #14 |
|
OSNN Veteran Addict
Joined: March 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,805
Reputation: 1490
Power: 217 |
Or MAC spoofing, or you could use some OpenBSD machines as load balancers with CARP as a cheaper alternative to VRRP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top | #15 |
|
Spammer representing.
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 2,566
Blog Entries: 2
Reputation: 1630
Power: 136 |
Client access control. Or possibly load balancing, if you like to hack it up.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...fsfaq.mspx#E4C |
|
|
|
|
|
Top | #16 |
|
OSNN Junior Addict
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 4
Reputation: 0
Power: 0 |
hi everyone
thanks for all those replies. First of all let me explain the purpose of all this we have a worgroup consisting of around 50 computers in Location A. One of these computers in the network is a win 2003 server which as internet access(ADSL). The ipaddress of the machine that has internet access is 192.168.0.100 we have another worgroup consisting of around 50 computers in Location B. One of these computers in the workgroup is a win 2003 server which as internet access(ADSL).). The ipaddress of the machine that has internet access is 192.168.0.100 Now the requirement is that a computer(that has no internet access) in Location A needs to access the machine that has internet access in Location B I connected the machine in Location A (having internet access) to the machine in Location B(having internet access) using Hamachi(VPN solution) I am able to connect the machines also without any problem. The machine having internet access in Location A and the machine having Internet access in Location B have the same ip address 192.168.0.100 Since the internet connected machine in Location A(192.168.0.100) and the internet connected machine in Location B(192.168.0.100) have the same Ip address it is creating a confusion for me while defining routes. To overcome this problem I decided to assign a secondary ip-address to the internet connected computers in both Location A and Location B to avoid any confusion while defining routes. the name of the computer that has internet access in Location-A is 'backup1' and the name of the computer that has internet access in Location-A is 'backup2' now I am running the command ping backup1 on 'backup1' machine(opening a command prompt in backup1 machine) I get a reply from 192.168.0.100 which is what I need now I am running the command ping backup2 on 'backup2' machine(opening a command prompt in backup2 machine) I get a reply from 151.0.0.1 which IS which is not what I want. I want the reply to come from 192.168.0.100 Also please note that all the IP addresses are local |
|
|
|
|
|
Top | #17 |
|
XPista7eopard*ix
Joined: April 2004
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 4,028
Reputation: 2947
Power: 168 |
this is ass-backwards way of solving your problem.
It's much simpler and easier to just setup each location as separate network segments - especially as you are connecting the two segments together. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Network Shares Problem - Windows Home Server/Server 2003 | indyjones | Windows Server Systems | 5 | December 2nd, 2007 11:30pm |
| SBS 2003 assigning mapped drives? | Heeter | Windows Server Systems | 25 | September 12th, 2007 6:58am |
| Two IP addresses on the same network interface | pguerra | Windows Desktop Systems | 32 | April 22nd, 2006 3:36am |
| My Network Places on 2003 Server | ptltruck | Windows Server Systems | 15 | January 23rd, 2006 5:12pm |
| broadcasting multiple mac addresses | theevilsithlord | Windows Desktop Systems | 1 | March 3rd, 2004 9:22pm |