Having 2 internet connections

[Jay]

probably need to put general users down one pipe and maybe remote desktop users or other bandwith effected programs down another.

Can the OP explain exactly what it is he is trying to do and why?

[latrosicarius]

probably need to put general users down one pipe and maybe remote desktop users or other bandwith effected programs down another.

Can the OP explain exactly what it is he is trying to do and why?

Yes, you are right. That's exactly what I'm trying to do. The server runs a VPN, and so I need a higher-upload connection. The server scope (10.1.0.0) is supposed to use my 20/20 connection.

The rest of the users are supposed to be in the other scope (10.2.0.0) so they can be assigned the other router, which is connected to a 15/2 connection. This connection is better for games, and it will let gaming be unaffected when somebody is downloading or uploading from the VPN.

When setting up the scopes, I was forced to use a different subnet in the second quad, otherwise it said it could not create the scope because it overlaps with another scope. I'll try again when I get home, but isn't there any other way to bridge two scopes??

Also, why is changing the subnet "dirty"?
Thanks

[Jay]

Its dirty becuase its just of the number of IP adresses this will give you I think, it will slow things down a bit.

Can you not do a batch route add for some systems? This will stop you needing to add a second scope.

[latrosicarius]

I don't know how to add route. I tried looking this up and only found links that didn't seem to be what I wanted. =(

All I did was look at DHCP and notice that clients could be assigned a router on a per-scope-basis. That's why I figured having 2 separate scopes was the right thing to do.


Oh, and by the way... having more quads of subnet mask be zero will slow it down? If I keep my subnet at 255.255.0.0, and adjust my scopes from:

• 10.1.0.0
• 10.2.0.0

to

• 10.0.1.0
• 10.0.2.0

... that won't slow it down, right?

[Jay]

Give me a second... i'm getting myself confused here. Subnets do my nut.

for now

do a route print from a client and see its default gateway

you can do a route add

read this

Microsoft Corporation

[latrosicarius]

Okay, but i will have to wait until tonight to try this. =(

[latrosicarius]

I do not believe its possible to do what I want (have 2 separate scopes that communicate with each other).

Here is a person with a very similar need to mine.
DHCP conflict with existing scope

Adding persistent routes for each client is not as desirable as letting a scope simply direct them all to the router I choose.

Now I have to give every single one of them a reservation and give them a persistent route... BLAH!

What the hell is the point of having completely firewalled scopes on the same network?!!!! They WOULD be the perfect way to organize different types of clients on your contiguous network, BUT NOOOO

/end rant

But still thank you all for giving me the persistent route option at least

[latrosicarius]

Can I have a little help with add route pls?

This is my network atm:

Scope: 10.0.1.0
Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0
Gateway: 10.0.1.2
Range: 10.0.1.100 thru 10.0.1.199
DNS/DHCP Server: 10.0.1.100

I also have a second router hooked up to the switch: 10.0.1.1

My goal is to have the server (10.0.1.100) use router 10.0.1.1, and all other computers on the network use router 10.0.1.2.

Well, right now, everything is using 10.0.1.2 because (as you can see above) that's the router I put in the scope.

Now, can somebody please tell my how to get the server to use 10.0.1.1 instead? I am currently using this add route command:

route add 10.0.1.100 mask 255.255.255.0 10.0.1.1

but it fails and says:

The route addition failed: The specified mask parameter is invalid. (Destination & Mask) != Destination.

Some things to note: I CAN access both routers from all computers, including server, AND each router has successfully acquired an IP address from its respective ISP. The only problem is that, without adding this route, everything is just using one router.

Thanks!

[burble]

Have a look at the route add statement, compare the route you're adding to the subnet mask you've set.

What you're saying there is that to route data to 10.0.1.100/255.255.255.0 you need to route through 10.0.1.1. You've specified a /24 subnet mask but a /32 address.

If you wanted to route to 10.0.1.100 then you'd need a subnet mask of 255.255.255.255, ie, an individual host.

Am I right in thinking that you want the server to send all internet traffic through 10.0.1.1? If so, the command you need is;

route add 0.0.0.0 mask 0.0.0.0 10.0.1.1

In other words, to get to every host on the outside world, use 10.0.1.1.

I think you've misunderstood the syntax of the command, it is:

route add <ip address you want to route to> mask <subnet mask of the ip you want to route to> <ip of router you want to use>

If you want to make that route persistent, ie, not dissapear after a reboot then add '-p' somewhere in the command.

[latrosicarius]

SWEET, that worked like a charm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanx burble, jay, and everyone!