Re: 1 versus 2 nics
- From: "Anthony [MVP]" <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:41:45 +0100
Best of all is two nics teamed using the hardware vendor's teaming software. That gives you resilience for a nic failure (and it is inexpensive). Next best is a spare nic, ready to use, but Disabled.
The whole business about two separate network "connections" (as distinct from two nics) is from when networking equipment was expensive and Windows provided a simple Dial-up Remote Access Service. Then windows has to Bridge the two networks, inside and outside.
The other specialised case for two connections is when you are using the server as a hardened firewalling or proxy appliance, for example running ISA server.
Then SBS Premium has configurations with two connections because it is trying to give you everything in one box.
Now networking equipment is inexpensive and there is little reason to use the server for remote access, connection sharing etc. Of course you may still choose to.
Hope that helps,
Anthony
http://www.airdesk.com
"coopfab" <coopfab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:08AA290B-23F1-47C5-B4CA-7688656C7BC0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
We're migrating Outlook currently running on our workstations to Exchange. In
our server we have 1 nic and a router between the server and the internet. Is
it better to have 2 nics? As I understand it, you can't run Windows
Firewall/ICS with ony 1 nic.
Thanks in advance for your help.
--
M. Cooper
.
- References:
- 1 versus 2 nics
- From: coopfab
- 1 versus 2 nics
- Prev by Date: Re: 1 versus 2 nics
- Next by Date: Re: 1 versus 2 nics
- Previous by thread: Re: 1 versus 2 nics
- Next by thread: RE: 1 versus 2 nics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
