Using NT w/s as a bridge

[Denville Longhurst]

I need to bridge two physically separate networks (which must remain
separate) such that users on the new TCP/IP network can read certain files
on the old NetBUEI (WFW type) circuit, and I would like to do this using an
NT box with two network cards. I can work out how to set up the two cards
but can't find the solution to the locical connection.

Any suggestions most welcome.

Many thanks in anticipation,

Denville.

[garysharp]

In article <83jr6k$qb5$1...@lure.pipex.net>, "Denville

Longhurst" <Denv...@metco.co.uk> wrote:
> I need to bridge two physically separate networks
> (which must remain
> separate) such that users on the new TCP/IP network
> can read certain files
> on the old NetBUEI (WFW type) circuit, and I would
> like to do this using an
> NT box with two network cards. I can work out how to
> set up the two cards
> but can't find the solution to the locical connection.

NT will route IP, but will not bridge netbuei.

g

* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful

[James C. Owens]

On Sun, 19 Dec 1999 23:52:57 -0000, "Denville Longhurst"
<Denv...@metco.co.uk> wrote:

>I need to bridge two physically separate networks (which must remain
>separate) such that users on the new TCP/IP network can read certain files
>on the old NetBUEI (WFW type) circuit, and I would like to do this using an
>NT box with two network cards. I can work out how to set up the two cards
>but can't find the solution to the locical connection.
>

>Any suggestions most welcome.
>
>Many thanks in anticipation,
>
>Denville.
>

NT will not act as a bridge. NT can perform static routing/IP
forwarding. NetBEUI is not routable. You will have to either (1)
install the MS TCP/IP stack for WFW 3.11, (2) spend lots of money for
a specialized bridge (bad idea), or (3) bite the bullet and go to a
switch architecture. Since decent switches have come down radically in
price, the latter option is the most feasible.

Anyway, using a bridge will flood the other physical network with
NetBEUI broadcast, etc. packets and negate the benefits of having
separate physical networks.

Why must the networks remain physically separate? Security concerns?
Using a true bridge essentially fuses the two networks together, and
removes all benefits of having separate networks. WFW machines have
essentially no security, anyway, so security must not be a big concern
to you.

The best solution in your case (that would quickly solve your
problem), is to use a switch as the root of the physical network. A
decent 16-port 10/100 switch can be had for under $500 these days. If
the hub that handles the WFW NetBEUI stuff is UTP (10Base-T), then
just plug an uplink line from the WFW hub into one of the switch
ports. Use the rest of the switch ports for your server, and other
hubs/workstations. If the WFW stuff is 10Base-2 (i.e. thinnet with BNC
connectors), use a thinnet to UTP converter (less expensive), or get a
switch with 10Base-2 support (more expensive).

The switch will vastly reduce the collisions on your combined network,
and give the same benefits of having physically separate networks. The
mixture of NetBEUI and TCP/IP on the switch is immaterial. It doesn't
care, since the switching fabric is at a lower layer. This will allow
you to get rid of NetBEUI at your leisure.

R/

James C. Owens
owe...@bellatlantic.net
james...@earthlink.net
WinNT 4.0 Server (Bld 1381: SP 6) Super P6DBU 2xPII 400 MHz 256 MB RAM
SuSE Linux 6.1 (kernel 2.2.7) Tyan S1563D 2xP55C 166 MHz 192 MB RAM