02-18-2009 09:19 AM - edited 02-18-2009 09:26 AM
Can switches service different sub-nets?
I'm working with a business that uses a EZXS16W unmanaged 16 port workgroup switch to which all of the nodes are connected.
I'm putting in a server at a business where I want to isolate 6 of the 16 employees that are connected to this switch and make them members my server's domain.
The business has a T1 connected to a box that is apparently handling DHCP and passing out IP numbers. It's using the standard 192.168.1.x subnet.
I don't think I can I achieve what I want by just hanging the server off the switch as just another node and then creating a different sub-net for it and the six users, because that would take them off the sub-net the Internet is coming in on.
The EZXS16W is apparently unmanaged, so I can't set up a vlan.
But the server has two nics and is configured to be a Domain Controller, NAT, Firewall and DHCP server. So I'm wondering, can I connect both of the nics from the server to the switch so that one nic is sending/recieving Internet traffic on the main sub-net (192.168.1.x) with the other nic manually configured to a different sub-net (10.0.2.x) and then manually configure the 6 users to use 10.0.2.1 as the default gateway so that I essentially have two networks operating through the same switch?
OR, would I have to connect my server to the main switch with one nic, buy another switch to connect to my second nic and make the six users connect to the second switch?
Solved! Go to Solution.
02-19-2009 11:11 AM
It may be possible if you want to communicate them, if you want to have internet access to the 6 users with 10.0.2.x network, it won't work...
Even if you connect your server to the main switch with one nic, buy another switch to connect to my second nic and make the six users connect to the second switch, it won't connect to internet...
02-21-2009 08:15 AM - edited 02-21-2009 08:16 AM
Thanks for the info. That's good to know.
The reason I asked is because the owner was afraid of my disturbing his current setup. But I finally convinced him to do the best thing, which was to put the server in front of everything and let it manage the groups.
I still think my second idea would have worked though.
Since the server would be doing NAT translation, there shouldn't be any reason why those 6 users couldn't reach the net if the server could. But I guess I didn't mention NAT in my first post.