Nico2005 wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I'm trying to setup 2 domain in 2 differents forests with an external
> trust between both domain.
> These two domain are only on a switch no access to internet
>
> Switch address 192.168.1.63

On a switch or a router?
If it is a switch, then you need to either change the address scheme to be
on the same subnet.
If it is a router, is it one router or two?

In order to have communication between the two subnets, you need two routers
set up with routes between the routers.



--
Best regards,
Kevin D. Goodknecht Sr. [MVP]
Hope This s
===================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group"
via your newsreader so that others may learn and
benefit from your issue, to respond directly to
me remove the nospam. from my email address.
===================================
http://www.lonestaramerica.com/
http://support.wftx.us/
http://message.wftx.us/
===================================
Use Outlook Express?... Get OE_Quotefix:
It will strip signature out and more
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
===================================
Keep a back up of your OE settings and folders
with OEBackup:
http://www.oe.com/OEBackup/Default.aspx
===================================

"Kevin D. Goodknecht Sr. [MVP]" <admin@nospam.WFTX.US> wrote in message
news:eg%23j5EzFHHA.3872@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Nico2005 wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I'm trying to setup 2 domain in 2 differents forests with an external
>> trust between both domain.

Usually you need NetBIOS to work for external trusts,
so usually you need WINS Servers when you have multiple
subnets.

All DCs and other machines need to be WINS clients if you
deploy WINS server.

>> These two domain are only on a switch no access to internet
>>
>> Switch address 192.168.1.63
>
> On a switch or a router?
> If it is a switch, then you need to either change the address scheme to be
> on the same subnet.
> If it is a router, is it one router or two?
>
> In order to have communication between the two subnets, you need two
> routers
> set up with routes between the routers.

Or one routers with network interfaces on each
subnet.

That is what routers do.


--
Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
Accelerated MCSE
http://www.LearnQuick.Com
[phone number on web site]

Its on the same subnet

1 domain is on a 10.10.1.1
the 2nd domain is on a 192.168.1.1
with both having subnet 255.255.255.0

is it possible only with a switch or i really need a router ???
because i need a trust to move stuff from one domain to the other and
after shutdown the first domain.

I dont know if its will be more easy just to start from scratch (only
have 17 users) both my problem is i dont want to redo all security. But
if its more easy i will start from scratch

Thanks again.

In news:1165281377.576717.6730@16g2000cwy.googlegroup s.com,
Nico2005 <nterreault@celmedbio.com> stated, which I commented on below:
> Its on the same subnet
>
> 1 domain is on a 10.10.1.1
> the 2nd domain is on a 192.168.1.1
> with both having subnet 255.255.255.0
>
> is it possible only with a switch or i really need a router ???
> because i need a trust to move stuff from one domain to the other and
> after shutdown the first domain.
>
> I dont know if its will be more easy just to start from scratch (only
> have 17 users) both my problem is i dont want to redo all security.
> But if its more easy i will start from scratch
>
> Thanks again.

Switches "route" (hate to use that term with a switch since it is confusing
to many who are not fully familiar with it), by discerning the MAC address
on each port. Each NIC has a unique MAC address and therefore traffic
between ports can be restricted for two machines to those ports only. It
makes the network more efficient. Hubs do not route, but are just bit
repeaters that repeat the traffic on ALL ports. Routers "route" by
discerning IP subnets.

You are asking what you need to "route" IP addresses between different
subnets, therefore, the answer is you need a router.

If you know your seven layers (OSI model), that will understand what
device works on what layers and why. From the top down, it goes smarter to
dumber. Disregarding the first top three, since they are considered
"application" layers, and the 4th, which is the Transport layer (TCP, UDP
and SPX work here, as well as NAT devices and anything else that uses TCP or
UDP), Network layer is where IP addresses live. Routers work on that layer.
Datalink is where the MAC addresses live. Bridges and switches (multi port
bridges) live here. Physical has no intelligence, hence why they repeat. The
smarter it is (going up the stack), the more intricate the device is and the
more expensive it will be. Hence why routers cost more than switches.

(Application requesting network activity)
|
App
Presentation
Session
Transport (TCP, UDP, SPX, etc)
Network (IP, IPX) (routers work on this layer)
Datalink (MAC) (Bridges, Switches)
Physical (Hubs)
|
wire plugged into the network

--
Ace
Innovative IT Concepts, Inc (IITCI)
Willow Grove, PA

This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
confers no rights.

Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT, MVP
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
Microsoft Certified Trainer

Having difficulty reading or finding responses to your post?
Instead of the website you're using, I suggest to use OEx (Outlook Express
or any other newsreader), and configure a news account, pointing to
news.microsoft.com. This is a direct link to the Microsoft Public
Newsgroups. It is FREE and requires NO ISP's Usenet account. OEx allows you
to easily find, track threads, cross-post, sort by date, poster's name,
watched threads or subject.
It's easy:

How to Configure OEx for Internet News
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=171164

Infinite Diversities in Infinite Combinations
Assimilation Imminent. Resistance is Futile
"Very funny Scotty. Now, beam down my clothes."

The only constant in life is change...

"Ace Fekay [MVP]" <PleaseAskMe@SomeDomain.com> wrote in message
news:eV2UQRDGHHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> In news:1165281377.576717.6730@16g2000cwy.googlegroup s.com,
> Nico2005 <nterreault@celmedbio.com> stated, which I commented on below:
>> Its on the same subnet
>>
>> 1 domain is on a 10.10.1.1
>> the 2nd domain is on a 192.168.1.1
>> with both having subnet 255.255.255.0
>>
>> is it possible only with a switch or i really need a router ???
>> because i need a trust to move stuff from one domain to the other and
>> after shutdown the first domain.
>>
>> I dont know if its will be more easy just to start from scratch (only
>> have 17 users) both my problem is i dont want to redo all security.
>> But if its more easy i will start from scratch
>>
>> Thanks again.
>
> Switches "route" (hate to use that term with a switch since it is
> confusing to many who are not fully familiar with it), by discerning the
> MAC address on each port.

What you describe is 'bridging' (Based on MAC) address and
that is what MANY but not all switches do. Routing should NOT
be used to describe these switches. (I.e., Layer 2 switches).

Other switches actually DO "route" and that is the proper term
to use when referring to those switches (layer 3 or router switches.)

And of course some switches do both (usually more expensive and
complex devices.)

> You are asking what you need to "route" IP addresses between different
> subnets, therefore, the answer is you need a router.

In general he needs a ROUTER (or a switch that is a router)
to route between two different network address ranges.

It is technically possible to do this without an explicit router
by setting every (and every) machine to understand that these
two networks are on the same physical broadcast domain (i.e.,
same actual segment, or bridges segments) but this is an unusual
and perhaps error prone way to do this.

--
Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
Accelerated MCSE
http://www.LearnQuick.Com
[phone number on web site]

"Ace Fekay [MVP]" <PleaseAskMe@SomeDomain.com> wrote in message
news:eV2UQRDGHHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> In news:1165281377.576717.6730@16g2000cwy.googlegroup s.com,
> Nico2005 <nterreault@celmedbio.com> stated, which I commented on below:
>> Its on the same subnet
>>
>> 1 domain is on a 10.10.1.1
>> the 2nd domain is on a 192.168.1.1
>> with both having subnet 255.255.255.0
>>
>> is it possible only with a switch or i really need a router ???
>> because i need a trust to move stuff from one domain to the other and
>> after shutdown the first domain.
>>
>> I dont know if its will be more easy just to start from scratch (only
>> have 17 users) both my problem is i dont want to redo all security.
>> But if its more easy i will start from scratch
>>
>> Thanks again.
>
> Switches "route" (hate to use that term with a switch since it is
> confusing to many who are not fully familiar with it), by discerning the
> MAC address on each port. Each NIC has a unique MAC address and therefore
> traffic between ports can be restricted for two machines to those ports
> only. It makes the network more efficient. Hubs do not route, but are just
> bit repeaters that repeat the traffic on ALL ports. Routers "route" by
> discerning IP subnets.
>
> You are asking what you need to "route" IP addresses between different
> subnets, therefore, the answer is you need a router.
>
> If you know your seven layers (OSI model), that will understand what
> device works on what layers and why. From the top down, it goes smarter to
> dumber. Disregarding the first top three, since they are considered
> "application" layers, and the 4th, which is the Transport layer (TCP, UDP
> and SPX work here, as well as NAT devices and anything else that uses TCP
> or UDP), Network layer is where IP addresses live. Routers work on that
> layer. Datalink is where the MAC addresses live. Bridges and switches
> (multi port bridges) live here. Physical has no intelligence, hence why
> they repeat. The smarter it is (going up the stack), the more intricate
> the device is and the more expensive it will be. Hence why routers cost
> more than switches.
>
> (Application requesting network activity)
> |
> App
> Presentation
> Session
> Transport (TCP, UDP, SPX, etc)
> Network (IP, IPX) (routers work on this layer)
> Datalink (MAC) (Bridges, Switches)
> Physical (Hubs)
> |
> wire plugged into the network
>
> --
> Ace
> Innovative IT Concepts, Inc (IITCI)
> Willow Grove, PA
>
> This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
> confers no rights.
>
> Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT, MVP
> Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
> Microsoft Certified Trainer
>
> Having difficulty reading or finding responses to your post?
> Instead of the website you're using, I suggest to use OEx (Outlook Express
> or any other newsreader), and configure a news account, pointing to
> news.microsoft.com. This is a direct link to the Microsoft Public
> Newsgroups. It is FREE and requires NO ISP's Usenet account. OEx allows
> you to easily find, track threads, cross-post, sort by date, poster's
> name, watched threads or subject.
> It's easy:
>
> How to Configure OEx for Internet News
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=171164
>
> Infinite Diversities in Infinite Combinations
> Assimilation Imminent. Resistance is Futile
> "Very funny Scotty. Now, beam down my clothes."
>
> The only constant in life is change...
>

Nico,

So to agree with everyone else: You do need a device that will get
traffic from one network to the other, whether that is a device that can
act as a router (layer 3) or a bridge (layer 2). This will allow your
IP traffic to flow between the 10.10.1.0/24 network and the
192.168.1.0/24 network.

So you need to ask yourself two questions:
1. Do I have a real reason to have two networks and two domains?
2. Does the network hardware that you are running support routing or
bridging?

Question 1: It seems unlikely that you would need two separate networks
in an environment with only 17 users, though there are some legitimate
reasons to do this. Think about why you segmented the network like this
and whether what you gain from it is worth the time and hardware cost
associated with configuring this correctly. If you do need to do this,
we can certainly here, or you can hire a local IT firm to you.

Question 2: Take a look at your current equipment to see what the
options are. If you want to post the make and model of the equipment we
could probably tell you off the bat whether you would be able to get it
to intelligently 'route' the traffic.

Think about the business reasons that drove you to your current
implementation and how you can best react to it. I am sure we can get
you up and running.

Ryan Hanisco
FlagShip Integration Services

"Nico2005" <nterreault@celmedbio.com> wrote in message
news:1165281377.576717.6730@16g2000cwy.googlegroup s.com:

> Its on the same subnet
>
> 1 domain is on a 10.10.1.1
> the 2nd domain is on a 192.168.1.1
> with both having subnet 255.255.255.0
>
> is it possible only with a switch or i really need a router ???
> because i need a trust to move stuff from one domain to the other and
> after shutdown the first domain.
>
> I dont know if its will be more easy just to start from scratch (only
> have 17 users) both my problem is i dont want to redo all security. But
> if its more easy i will start from scratch
>
> Thanks again.

"Ryan Hanisco" <rhanisco@flagshipis.com> wrote in message
news:OTjjaENGHHA.4652@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Nico,
>
> So to agree with everyone else: You do need a device that will get traffic
> from one network to the other, whether that is a device that can act as a
> router (layer 3) or a bridge (layer 2). This will allow your IP traffic
> to flow between the 10.10.1.0/24 network and the 192.168.1.0/24 network.

Actually it is a bit more specific or more trouble than that.

Merely putting a layer-2 (bridge) device into the network will
NOT tell the clients that they can reach those machine not on
their own network.

They will EITHER need to have specific routes (more trouble
for each one) or they must use a router (default gateway etc)
which can reach both networks address ranges.

Ultimately, this requires ROUTING whether the clients do their
OWN routing (manual, explicit added routes) or the clients send
to a 'real' router to route between the two different networks,
whether on the same broadcast domain or not.

--
Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
Accelerated MCSE
http://www.LearnQuick.Com
[phone number on web site]

> So you need to ask yourself two questions:
> 1. Do I have a real reason to have two networks and two domains?
> 2. Does the network hardware that you are running support routing or
> bridging?
>
> Question 1: It seems unlikely that you would need two separate networks in
> an environment with only 17 users, though there are some legitimate
> reasons to do this. Think about why you segmented the network like this
> and whether what you gain from it is worth the time and hardware cost
> associated with configuring this correctly. If you do need to do this, we
> can certainly here, or you can hire a local IT firm to you.
>
> Question 2: Take a look at your current equipment to see what the options
> are. If you want to post the make and model of the equipment we could
> probably tell you off the bat whether you would be able to get it to
> intelligently 'route' the traffic.
>
> Think about the business reasons that drove you to your current
> implementation and how you can best react to it. I am sure we can get you
> up and running.
>
> Ryan Hanisco
> FlagShip Integration Services
>
> "Nico2005" <nterreault@celmedbio.com> wrote in message
> news:1165281377.576717.6730@16g2000cwy.googlegroup s.com:
>
>> Its on the same subnet
>>
>> 1 domain is on a 10.10.1.1
>> the 2nd domain is on a 192.168.1.1
>> with both having subnet 255.255.255.0
>>
>> is it possible only with a switch or i really need a router ???
>> because i need a trust to move stuff from one domain to the other and
>> after shutdown the first domain.
>>
>> I dont know if its will be more easy just to start from scratch (only
>> have 17 users) both my problem is i dont want to redo all security. But
>> if its more easy i will start from scratch
>>
>> Thanks again.
>

In news:OKN2AiGGHHA.1276@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
Herb Martin <news@LearnQuick.com> stated, which I commented on below:

> What you describe is 'bridging' (Based on MAC) address and
> that is what MANY but not all switches do. Routing should NOT
> be used to describe these switches. (I.e., Layer 2 switches).



>
> Other switches actually DO "route" and that is the proper term
> to use when referring to those switches (layer 3 or router switches.)
>
> And of course some switches do both (usually more expensive and
> complex devices.)


>
>> You are asking what you need to "route" IP addresses between
>> different subnets, therefore, the answer is you need a router.
>
> In general he needs a ROUTER (or a switch that is a router)
> to route between two different network address ranges.
>
> It is technically possible to do this without an explicit router
> by setting every (and every) machine to understand that these
> two networks are on the same physical broadcast domain (i.e.,
> same actual segment, or bridges segments) but this is an unusual
> and perhaps error prone way to do this.


I did mention that I didn't like to use the word "routing" when it comes to
switched ports, but essentially a switch will discern source and destination
MACs and will control the traffic between these two ports to only these two
ports and the rest of the network will not see that specific traffic. Of
course broadcast traffic is sent to all ports.

Also, I didn't want to complicate it anymore by introducing layer 3
switches. But since you've mentioned it, yes, these devices are combination
devices that work on multiple layers, and each port can be configured
whether as switched or IP routed.

And yes, he needs an IP router, or a Layer 3 Switch. Of course it depends on
what he has to spend. Layer 3 switches are NOT cheap.

Ace

Herb,

Absolutely correct. I am expecting that either the solution will have
to be re-architected to not use the different networks or that the
business requirements will justify the expense of equipment designed to
handle this.

Then there is always the possibility that Nico has all this plugged into
a Cisco 3750 or something like that that can handle inter-VLAN routing
on its own.

Ryan

"Herb Martin" <news@LearnQuick.com> wrote in message
news:ueByW6OGHHA.3872@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

> "Ryan Hanisco" <rhanisco@flagshipis.com> wrote in message
> news:OTjjaENGHHA.4652@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> > Nico,
> >
> > So to agree with everyone else: You do need a device that will get traffic
> > from one network to the other, whether that is a device that can act as a
> > router (layer 3) or a bridge (layer 2). This will allow your IP traffic
> > to flow between the 10.10.1.0/24 network and the 192.168.1.0/24 network.
>
>
> Actually it is a bit more specific or more trouble than that.
>
> Merely putting a layer-2 (bridge) device into the network will
> NOT tell the clients that they can reach those machine not on
> their own network.
>
> They will EITHER need to have specific routes (more trouble
> for each one) or they must use a router (default gateway etc)
> which can reach both networks address ranges.
>
> Ultimately, this requires ROUTING whether the clients do their
> OWN routing (manual, explicit added routes) or the clients send
> to a 'real' router to route between the two different networks,
> whether on the same broadcast domain or not.
>
> --
> Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
> Accelerated MCSE
> http://www.LearnQuick.Com
> [phone number on web site]
>
>
> > So you need to ask yourself two questions:
> > 1. Do I have a real reason to have two networks and two domains?
> > 2. Does the network hardware that you are running support routing or
> > bridging?
> >
> > Question 1: It seems unlikely that you would need two separate networks in
> > an environment with only 17 users, though there are some legitimate
> > reasons to do this. Think about why you segmented the network like this
> > and whether what you gain from it is worth the time and hardware cost
> > associated with configuring this correctly. If you do need to do this, we
> > can certainly here, or you can hire a local IT firm to you.
> >
> > Question 2: Take a look at your current equipment to see what the options
> > are. If you want to post the make and model of the equipment we could
> > probably tell you off the bat whether you would be able to get it to
> > intelligently 'route' the traffic.
> >
> > Think about the business reasons that drove you to your current
> > implementation and how you can best react to it. I am sure we can get you
> > up and running.
> >
> > Ryan Hanisco
> > FlagShip Integration Services
> >
> > "Nico2005" <nterreault@celmedbio.com> wrote in message
> > news:1165281377.576717.6730@16g2000cwy.googlegroup s.com:
> >
>
> >> Its on the same subnet
> >>
> >> 1 domain is on a 10.10.1.1
> >> the 2nd domain is on a 192.168.1.1
> >> with both having subnet 255.255.255.0
> >>
> >> is it possible only with a switch or i really need a router ???
> >> because i need a trust to move stuff from one domain to the other and
> >> after shutdown the first domain.
> >>
> >> I dont know if its will be more easy just to start from scratch (only
> >> have 17 users) both my problem is i dont want to redo all security. But
> >> if its more easy i will start from scratch
> >>
> >> Thanks again.
>
> >

> I did mention that I didn't like to use the word "routing" when it comes
> to switched ports, but essentially

And since you both "don't like" it and it is wrong and confusing
it is best not to use the wrong word at all on a subject that
is difficult for most people to understand without first getting
at least the vocabulary correct.

> Also, I didn't want to complicate it anymore by introducing layer 3
> switches.

Then don't, but then avoid the word routing and stick with
the correct terms: Bridge and bridging.

> But since you've mentioned it, yes, these devices are combination devices
> that work on multiple layers, and each port can be configured whether as
> switched or IP routed.

At the point where you have to deal with this then you must
distinguish layer 3 and layer 2 devices, or functionality within
a single physical device, by using the correct terms.

Generally, it is best to first explain these differences as
separate components, and then (only then) explain that
some switches are bridges, others are routers, and the
most sophisticated are hybrids that allow the administrator
to selectively configure both of these behaviors.


> And yes, he needs an IP router, or a Layer 3 Switch. Of course it depends
> on what he has to spend. Layer 3 switches are NOT cheap.

Actually he needs to CONFIGURE ROUTING -- but that
could be on a switch, a (pure) router, or even an ALL of
the individual workstations by using explicit manual routes.

The entire discussion of "switches" is largely a distraction
when the ISSUE is routing, but not even necessarily a
"router".

It's a matter of understanding these items at the basic level,
and then keeping it as simple as possible -- but no simpler.


--
Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
Accelerated MCSE
http://www.LearnQuick.Com
[phone number on web site]

"Ace Fekay [MVP]" <PleaseAskMe@SomeDomain.com> wrote in message
news:OZU$pqPGHHA.1912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> In news:OKN2AiGGHHA.1276@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
> Herb Martin <news@LearnQuick.com> stated, which I commented on below:
>
>> What you describe is 'bridging' (Based on MAC) address and
>> that is what MANY but not all switches do. Routing should NOT
>> be used to describe these switches. (I.e., Layer 2 switches).
>
>
>
>>
>> Other switches actually DO "route" and that is the proper term
>> to use when referring to those switches (layer 3 or router switches.)
>>
>> And of course some switches do both (usually more expensive and
>> complex devices.)
>
>
>>
>>> You are asking what you need to "route" IP addresses between
>>> different subnets, therefore, the answer is you need a router.
>>
>> In general he needs a ROUTER (or a switch that is a router)
>> to route between two different network address ranges.
>>
>> It is technically possible to do this without an explicit router
>> by setting every (and every) machine to understand that these
>> two networks are on the same physical broadcast domain (i.e.,
>> same actual segment, or bridges segments) but this is an unusual
>> and perhaps error prone way to do this.
>
>
> I did mention that I didn't like to use the word "routing" when it comes
> to switched ports, but essentially a switch will discern source and
> destination MACs and will control the traffic between these two ports to
> only these two ports and the rest of the network will not see that
> specific traffic. Of course broadcast traffic is sent to all ports.
>
> Also, I didn't want to complicate it anymore by introducing layer 3
> switches. But since you've mentioned it, yes, these devices are
> combination devices that work on multiple layers, and each port can be
> configured whether as switched or IP routed.
>
> And yes, he needs an IP router, or a Layer 3 Switch. Of course it depends
> on what he has to spend. Layer 3 switches are NOT cheap.
>
> Ace
>

Nico2005 wrote:
> Its on the same subnet
>
> 1 domain is on a 10.10.1.1
> the 2nd domain is on a 192.168.1.1
> with both having subnet 255.255.255.0
>

The subnet mask determines which part of the IP address is the subnet
and which is the host. Having the same subnet mask does not put them on
the same subnet. With a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0, in order to be on
the same subnet all hosts must have the same IP numbers in the first 3
octets - i.e xxx.xxx.xxx.yyy - all must have the same "x" portions. So
using your networks, All IP addresses must begin with either 192.168.1
or 10.10.1. You can split the two domains up by assigning 1/2 of the
addresses to domain 1 and the other to domain 2. Then you can
communicate without a router.


> is it possible only with a switch or i really need a router ???

If you wish to use different subnets, you must have a properly
configured router (A real router, not a "SOHO" or "NAT" router) to route
between those subnets.

Also, your domain controllers will need to be able to locate services on
the other domains. That usually means forwarding DNS requests to the
other domain or having secondary zones for each domain in the other. As
Herb said, if you wish to be able to browse across a routed connection
you will need WINS.

....kurt

In news:O1arcHLHHHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
Herb Martin <news@LearnQuick.com> stated, which I commented on below:
>> I did mention that I didn't like to use the word "routing" when it
>> comes to switched ports, but essentially
>
> And since you both "don't like" it and it is wrong and confusing
> it is best not to use the wrong word at all on a subject that
> is difficult for most people to understand without first getting
> at least the vocabulary correct.
>
>> Also, I didn't want to complicate it anymore by introducing layer 3
>> switches.
>
> Then don't, but then avoid the word routing and stick with
> the correct terms: Bridge and bridging.

For the poster, I thought to simplify it and not yet introduce Layer 3
switches, but glad YOU brought it up for him and explained it, so you get
the credit.

However, as far as routed or switched, like I said, hate to use the term
because of the confusion but I do want to point out that it is actually
controlling the traffic by directing it between the ports in question based
on source and destination MAC switch ports. Bridging alone implies it is
connecting only two segments, where a switch has mutliple segments,
therefore it is essentially a multi-port bridge, so, yes it does bridging
functions, but on multiple ports. Therefore it 'switches' traffic between
the appropriate ports based on source and destination MACs.

Bitzenbytes.com - Hub vs. Switch
A switch, in common parlance, is a multi-port bridge. That said, an
overloaded switch can stop traffic just like having no switch. Not that the
typical home ...
http://www.bitzenbytes.com/Content-Arcanum-18-1-33.html


LAN Switching
A Layer 2 LAN switch is operationally similar to a multiport bridge
but has a much higher capacity and supports many new features, such as
full-duplex ...
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/...c/lanswtch.htm

multiport bridge definition of multiport bridge in computing ...A
bridge with more than two ports. There is little difference between a
multiport bridge and a switch, such as used to switch Ethernet packets, ...
http://computing-dictionary.thefreed...ltiport+bridge



>
> At the point where you have to deal with this then you must
> distinguish layer 3 and layer 2 devices, or functionality within
> a single physical device, by using the correct terms.
>
> Generally, it is best to first explain these differences as
> separate components, and then (only then) explain that
> some switches are bridges, others are routers, and the
> most sophisticated are hybrids that allow the administrator
> to selectively configure both of these behaviors.
>
>
>> And yes, he needs an IP router, or a Layer 3 Switch. Of course it
>> depends on what he has to spend. Layer 3 switches are NOT cheap.
>
> Actually he needs to CONFIGURE ROUTING -- but that
> could be on a switch, a (pure) router, or even an ALL of
> the individual workstations by using explicit manual routes.
>
> The entire discussion of "switches" is largely a distraction
> when the ISSUE is routing, but not even necessarily a
> "router".
>
> It's a matter of understanding these items at the basic level,
> and then keeping it as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

And yes, his problem is routing. Therefore he needs a ROUTER, as already
indicated.

Ace

> However, as far as routed or switched,

They are neither mutually exclusive nor synonymous,
as switches can either router or bridge (or as devices
perform a combination of both.)

> ...like I said, hate to use the term because of the confusion

The correct approach is neither to "hate the term" nor
to avoid it, but rather to just use and explain it correctly.

This stuff isn't actually hard, but has just been explained
badly by so many people and so many books that beginners
have been confused by the so-called experts.

> but I do want to point out that it is actually controlling the traffic by
> directing it between the ports in question based on source and destination
> MAC switch ports.

Then that is bridging -- or level 2 -- decision making.

Routers work at the network protocol (level 3) level to
make their decisions. (And they join multiple "broadcast
domains.")

> Bridging alone implies it is connecting only two segments,

No, bridging is a connection between multiple "collision
domains" (which we casually refer to as segments).

There is NO implication of "only two" segments in bridges;
single bridges have historically connected many segments.


> where a switch has mutliple segments, therefore it is essentially a
> multi-port bridge, so, yes it does bridging functions, but on multiple
> ports. T

Your main problem here seems to be that you really
misunderstand the KEY points of bridging and routing
and how they differ -- arguing from ignorance is not
going to make your initial mistakes go away. Only learning
the difference and how to explain it to those who come
looking to you for will do that.

> therefore it 'switches' traffic between the appropriate ports based on
> source and destination MACs.

Again, SOME switches use ROUTING mechanisms to make
such switching decisions -- others use bridging mechanisms
to make these decisions when switching between two OR
MORE collision domains.

If you will just FIRST learn the differences (and similarities)
between bridging and routing you will be much better prepared
to both understand what switching really is -- and is not -- and
to explain all of this to those who seek your .

You cannot "make yourself right" by continuing to try to explain
away your basic mistakes -- only by adopting both the correct
terminology and keying in on the key concepts will your
overcome these problem, learn, and best others.

BTW: The MOST important difference for network admins
is that: Bridges propagate broadcasts, while Routers block*
broadcasts.

* Technically, routers don't "block" broadcasts, they just
ignore them, but the best mental picture is to treat routers
as BARRIERS to the propagation of broadcasts. This is
both a good (isolation) and a bad (steps must be taken when
broadcasts traffic or results are important) feature.


--
Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
Accelerated MCSE
http://www.LearnQuick.Com
[phone number on web site]

"Ace Fekay [MVP]" <PleaseAskMe@SomeDomain.com> wrote in message
news:%23Q4eHjbHHHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> In news:O1arcHLHHHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
> Herb Martin <news@LearnQuick.com> stated, which I commented on below:
>>> I did mention that I didn't like to use the word "routing" when it
>>> comes to switched ports, but essentially
>>
>> And since you both "don't like" it and it is wrong and confusing
>> it is best not to use the wrong word at all on a subject that
>> is difficult for most people to understand without first getting
>> at least the vocabulary correct.
>>
>>> Also, I didn't want to complicate it anymore by introducing layer 3
>>> switches.
>>
>> Then don't, but then avoid the word routing and stick with
>> the correct terms: Bridge and bridging.
>
> For the poster, I thought to simplify it and not yet introduce Layer 3
> switches, but glad YOU brought it up for him and explained it, so you get
> the credit.
>
> However, as far as routed or switched, like I said, hate to use the term
> because of the confusion but I do want to point out that it is actually
> controlling the traffic by directing it between the ports in question
> based on source and destination MAC switch ports. Bridging alone implies
> it is connecting only two segments, where a switch has mutliple segments,
> therefore it is essentially a multi-port bridge, so, yes it does bridging
> functions, but on multiple ports. Therefore it 'switches' traffic between
> the appropriate ports based on source and destination MACs.
>
> Bitzenbytes.com - Hub vs. Switch
> A switch, in common parlance, is a multi-port bridge. That said, an
> overloaded switch can stop traffic just like having no switch. Not that
> the typical home ...
> http://www.bitzenbytes.com/Content-Arcanum-18-1-33.html
>
>
> LAN Switching
> A Layer 2 LAN switch is operationally similar to a multiport bridge
> but has a much higher capacity and supports many new features, such as
> full-duplex ...
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/...c/lanswtch.htm
>
> multiport bridge definition of multiport bridge in computing ...A
> bridge with more than two ports. There is little difference between a
> multiport bridge and a switch, such as used to switch Ethernet packets,
> ...
>
> http://computing-dictionary.thefreed...ltiport+bridge
>
>
>
>>
>> At the point where you have to deal with this then you must
>> distinguish layer 3 and layer 2 devices, or functionality within
>> a single physical device, by using the correct terms.
>>
>> Generally, it is best to first explain these differences as
>> separate components, and then (only then) explain that
>> some switches are bridges, others are routers, and the
>> most sophisticated are hybrids that allow the administrator
>> to selectively configure both of these behaviors.
>>
>>
>>> And yes, he needs an IP router, or a Layer 3 Switch. Of course it
>>> depends on what he has to spend. Layer 3 switches are NOT cheap.
>>
>> Actually he needs to CONFIGURE ROUTING -- but that
>> could be on a switch, a (pure) router, or even an ALL of
>> the individual workstations by using explicit manual routes.
>>
>> The entire discussion of "switches" is largely a distraction
>> when the ISSUE is routing, but not even necessarily a
>> "router".
>>
>> It's a matter of understanding these items at the basic level,
>> and then keeping it as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
>
> And yes, his problem is routing. Therefore he needs a ROUTER, as already
> indicated.
>
> Ace
>
>
>

In news:_bAfh.5254$GB1.2936@tornado.texas.rr.com,
Herb Martin <news@LearnQuick.com> stated, which I commented on below:

>> but I do want to point out that it is actually controlling the
>> traffic by directing it between the ports in question based on
>> source and destination MAC switch ports.
>
> Then that is bridging -- or level 2 -- decision making.
>
> Routers work at the network protocol (level 3) level to
> make their decisions. (And they join multiple "broadcast
> domains.")

As I pointed out in one of my earlier posts.


>
>> Bridging alone implies it is connecting only two segments,
>
> No, bridging is a connection between multiple "collision
> domains" (which we casually refer to as segments).
>
> There is NO implication of "only two" segments in bridges;
> single bridges have historically connected many segments.

Or broadcasts domains, as Intel documents call it.

When one uses the term "bridge", it is often referred to connecting two
segments. When one uses the term "switch", it refers to a multi-port bridge
(a switch) to connect multiple segments.

>
>
>> where a switch has mutliple segments, therefore it is essentially a
>> multi-port bridge, so, yes it does bridging functions, but on
>> multiple ports. T
>
> Your main problem here seems to be that you really
> misunderstand the KEY points of bridging and routing
> and how they differ -- arguing from ignorance is not
> going to make your initial mistakes go away. Only learning
> the difference and how to explain it to those who come
> looking to you for will do that.
>
>> therefore it 'switches' traffic between the appropriate ports based
>> on source and destination MACs.
>
> Again, SOME switches use ROUTING mechanisms to make
> such switching decisions -- others use bridging mechanisms
> to make these decisions when switching between two OR
> MORE collision domains.
>
> If you will just FIRST learn the differences (and similarities)
> between bridging and routing you will be much better prepared
> to both understand what switching really is -- and is not -- and
> to explain all of this to those who seek your .
>
> You cannot "make yourself right" by continuing to try to explain
> away your basic mistakes -- only by adopting both the correct
> terminology and keying in on the key concepts will your
> overcome these problem, learn, and best others.
>
> BTW: The MOST important difference for network admins
> is that: Bridges propagate broadcasts, while Routers block*
> broadcasts.
>
> * Technically, routers don't "block" broadcasts, they just
> ignore them, but the best mental picture is to treat routers
> as BARRIERS to the propagation of broadcasts. This is
> both a good (isolation) and a bad (steps must be taken when
> broadcasts traffic or results are important) feature.

Herb, to end this discussion, I jsut want to say what I've learned about
bridging and switching over the past 20 years or so I've read in tech books
and various articles, such as those that I previously posted, that point out
exactly what I said.

I'm tired of arguing...

"Ace Fekay [MVP]" <PleaseAskMe@SomeDomain.com> wrote in message
news:O8zQ1OmHHHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> In news:_bAfh.5254$GB1.2936@tornado.texas.rr.com,
> Herb Martin <news@LearnQuick.com> stated, which I commented on below:
>
>>> but I do want to point out that it is actually controlling the
>>> traffic by directing it between the ports in question based on
>>> source and destination MAC switch ports.
>>
>> Then that is bridging -- or level 2 -- decision making.
>>
>> Routers work at the network protocol (level 3) level to
>> make their decisions. (And they join multiple "broadcast
>> domains.")
>
> As I pointed out in one of my earlier posts.

Good. Then you were correct when you said that part.


>>> Bridging alone implies it is connecting only two segments,
>>
>> No, bridging is a connection between multiple "collision
>> domains" (which we casually refer to as segments).
>>
>> There is NO implication of "only two" segments in bridges;
>> single bridges have historically connected many segments.
>
> Or broadcasts domains, as Intel documents call it.

No, that is what ROUTERS do as you said above (when you
were correct) and indicate you said in previous posts.

You are continuing to confuse the features and functions of
Routers and Bridges.

Bridges EXTEND the broadcast domain by uniting what
would otherwise be multiple broadcast domains.

Maybe the word "joining" (which we are both using but
doing to imprecisely) is confusing you.

Let's try it a little more explicitly and see if that s you:

Routers router traffic between multiple broadcast domains.

Bridges move traffic and extend the broadcast domain
between different collision domains (that would be different
broadcast domains without the bridge to -- but with
the bridge are NOW all a single broadcast domain.)

> When one uses the term "bridge", it is often referred to connecting two
> segments. When one uses the term "switch", it refers to a multi-port
> bridge (a switch) to connect multiple segments.

Such imprecision is useless for learning or troubleshooting.

Both bridges or switches (even routers or router switches)
can move traffic between different segments*, either two, or
many. The difference is NOT "how many" segments, nor
the fact that the device assists in moving traffic, the difference
is in HOW and WHAT gets moved.

*Segment is another slippery word that tends to be used
imprecisely (by all of us for convenience) but much be
clearly defined when NOT absolutely clear by context OR
when dealing with anyone who hasn't got a clear understanding
of these distinctions -- IF we wish to be ful and not just
confuse the issue even more.

Segments can be a physical "lengths of wire", separate from
all others not continous.

Segments can be a physical "lengths of wire", joined by
connectors but separate from all others not continous or
joined by electrical devices.

Segments can be a physical "lengths of wire", joined by a
repeater into a single COLLISION domain, but separate
from all other collision domains (one leg or side of a Bridge
perhaps.)

Segments can be a physical "lengths of wire", joined by a
possible repeaters, but isolated from all other segments by
routers which isolate the segment into a single broadcast
domain.

So:
Segments can be a physical "lengths of wire" on one side
of a switch, hub, repeater, bridge or other device where the
really interesting issue is what the device does with the
traffic on that segment or with other segments.

>>> where a switch has mutliple segments, therefore it is essentially a
>>> multi-port bridge, so, yes it does bridging functions, but on
>>> multiple ports. T
>>
>> Your main problem here seems to be that you really
>> misunderstand the KEY points of bridging and routing
>> and how they differ -- arguing from ignorance is not
>> going to make your initial mistakes go away. Only learning
>> the difference and how to explain it to those who come
>> looking to you for will do that.
>>
>>> therefore it 'switches' traffic between the appropriate ports based
>>> on source and destination MACs.
>>
>> Again, SOME switches use ROUTING mechanisms to make
>> such switching decisions -- others use bridging mechanisms
>> to make these decisions when switching between two OR
>> MORE collision domains.
>>
>> If you will just FIRST learn the differences (and similarities)
>> between bridging and routing you will be much better prepared
>> to both understand what switching really is -- and is not -- and
>> to explain all of this to those who seek your .
>>
>> You cannot "make yourself right" by continuing to try to explain
>> away your basic mistakes -- only by adopting both the correct
>> terminology and keying in on the key concepts will your
>> overcome these problem, learn, and best others.
>>
>> BTW: The MOST important difference for network admins
>> is that: Bridges propagate broadcasts, while Routers block*
>> broadcasts.
>>
>> * Technically, routers don't "block" broadcasts, they just
>> ignore them, but the best mental picture is to treat routers
>> as BARRIERS to the propagation of broadcasts. This is
>> both a good (isolation) and a bad (steps must be taken when
>> broadcasts traffic or results are important) feature.
>
> Herb, to end this discussion, I jsut want to say what I've learned about
> bridging and switching over the past 20 years or so I've read in tech
> books and various articles, such as those that I previously posted, that
> point out exactly what I said.

It doesn't matter how long you took to learn it if you learned
it wrong -- arguing from ignorance will still not be ful
to YOU or to those you wish to .

> I'm tired of arguing...

Then either get it right or stop arguing. Continuing to argue
on your part when you have had it explained carefully and
fully to you is just foolish.

Just admit (to yourself -- you don't need to tell me) that you
have something to learn here and JUST LEARN IT.

I will if you continue to post -- time permitting -- but
I will not do you the disservice of treating you as if you are
too dumb (or even to stubborn) to learn this.

I know you well enough to know that you are both capable of
learning this correctly (no matter how badly someone of some
book has confused you in your past experience) AND that
once you learn it you will others to do so.

You are definitely worth the effort; you are NOT some Internet
troll who argues just so you can see your message in print and
so I must presume you wish to actually learn this if you continue
to post either questions or incorrect information.

It would be better however, if you dispensed with the mistakes
and just asked questions until you get it right.....


--
Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
Accelerated MCSE
http://www.LearnQuick.Com
[phone number on web site]

>
>

In news:eWwXeymHHHA.2456@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
Herb Martin <news@LearnQuick.com> stated, which I commented on below:
>
>> I'm tired of arguing...
>
> Then either get it right or stop arguing. Continuing to argue
> on your part when you have had it explained carefully and
> fully to you is just foolish.
>
> Just admit (to yourself -- you don't need to tell me) that you
> have something to learn here and JUST LEARN IT.
>
> I will if you continue to post -- time permitting -- but
> I will not do you the disservice of treating you as if you are
> too dumb (or even to stubborn) to learn this.
>
> I know you well enough to know that you are both capable of
> learning this correctly (no matter how badly someone of some
> book has confused you in your past experience) AND that
> once you learn it you will others to do so.
>
> You are definitely worth the effort; you are NOT some Internet
> troll who argues just so you can see your message in print and
> so I must presume you wish to actually learn this if you continue
> to post either questions or incorrect information.
>
> It would be better however, if you dispensed with the mistakes
> and just asked questions until you get it right.....



Herb, I'm done with this thread. You can keep talking if you like.

Let's hope the original poster found it beneficial and got the answer he was
seeking.

Ace

> Herb, I'm done with this thread. You can keep talking if you like.
>
> Let's hope the original poster found it beneficial and got the answer he
> was seeking.
>
> Ace

Why do people who say "I am tired of arguing" always
seem to post just one more message doing just that?

--
Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
Accelerated MCSE
http://www.LearnQuick.Com
[phone number on web site]

"Ace Fekay [MVP]" <PleaseAskMe@SomeDomain.com> wrote in message
news:uPbdm3nHHHA.4904@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> In news:eWwXeymHHHA.2456@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
> Herb Martin <news@LearnQuick.com> stated, which I commented on below:
>>
>>> I'm tired of arguing...
>>
>> Then either get it right or stop arguing. Continuing to argue
>> on your part when you have had it explained carefully and
>> fully to you is just foolish.
>>
>> Just admit (to yourself -- you don't need to tell me) that you
>> have something to learn here and JUST LEARN IT.
>>
>> I will if you continue to post -- time permitting -- but
>> I will not do you the disservice of treating you as if you are
>> too dumb (or even to stubborn) to learn this.
>>
>> I know you well enough to know that you are both capable of
>> learning this correctly (no matter how badly someone of some
>> book has confused you in your past experience) AND that
>> once you learn it you will others to do so.
>>
>> You are definitely worth the effort; you are NOT some Internet
>> troll who argues just so you can see your message in print and
>> so I must presume you wish to actually learn this if you continue
>> to post either questions or incorrect information.
>>
>> It would be better however, if you dispensed with the mistakes
>> and just asked questions until you get it right.....
>
>
>
> Herb, I'm done with this thread. You can keep talking if you like.
>
> Let's hope the original poster found it beneficial and got the answer he
> was seeking.
>
> Ace
>
>
>
>