When I come up with a solution that works, I will do exactly that.


"Asher_N" <compguy666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns974256DECD534compguy666hotmailcom@207.46.2 48.16...
> Have your boss take it up with management. From the perspective of IT,
> NO, they will not appreciate. At best, work with them. Introducing a new
> connection to the internet behind their back will only piss them off and
> put your job in jeopardy. There are other issues that you are not aware
> of withregards to bandwidth. One of wich is cost. DSL may be cheap, but
> it's not reliable.. You can be assured that if given the budget, your IT
> folks would be more than happy to increase bandwidth.
>
> Deal with the issue BEFORE you implement a solution. I run a network, I
> can assue you that if I ever found a rogue router, regardless of the
> intentions, I'd have the person responsible fired.
>
> <churchmouse@noemail.nospam> wrote in
> news:OunWZSbEGHA.2012@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl:
>
>> I really do understand that issue and will deal with it once I
>> have a
>> solution to the real problem. Which in this case is a crippling lack
>> of available bandwidth. IT is aware of it and has even switched thier
>> own pipe to another T1 so they can function but they won't do that for
>> anyone else. It's so bad that for our plant, windows update doesn't
>> work properly because it times out, email calls go out occaisionally
>> asking everyone to conserve usage whenever anyone is doing a
>> presentation that requires bandwidth. It's just silly and my boss want
>> me to fix it.
>> Using DSL will be a cost effective solution and once I demonstrate
>> a
>> viable solution (short of running fiber 20 miles to the noc) IT will
>> come around. I have the support of my Boss and his. I know this can be
>> secured better than they currently provide so I'm not too worried
>> about that end. I'm just looking for the best way to do it. Somthing
>> that IT will appreciate and understand, even if they didn't think of
>> it themselves.
>>
>> "Asher_N" <compguy666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9741E6F768964compguy666hotmailcom@207.46.2 48.16...
>>> Talk to your IT folks. In most orgs, and yours sounds like a large
>>> one, somebody installing a rogue device, ESPECIALLY a router to the
>>> internet, You could find yourself unemployed so fast you'll have no
>>> idea what hit you. Think about it, would you install a new door in
>>> your company's building?
>>>
>>> "Doug Sherman [MVP]" <dsherman@notampabayspamforme.rr.com> wrote in
>>> news:OE#NsNYEGHA.740@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:
>>>
>>>> The way you configure static routes on a router, as distinguished
>>>> from a Windows computer, is product specific. As an example, a low
>>>> end router such as Linksys BEFSR11 claims to support 20 static
>>>> routes and the manual explains how to configure them;
>>>>
>>>> http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satel...US%2FLayout&pa
>>>> ck edarg
>>>> s=c%3DL_Product_C2%26cid%3D1115416832017&pagename= Linksys%2FCommon%2F
>>>> Vi sitor Wrapper
>>>>
>>>> The first thing you need to do is determine whether this is a
>>>> significant issue - how many subnets are on this network and how
>>>> many do you really need to access. Possibly you could use dynamic
>>>> routing, but this is probably not a good idea in this scenario.
>>>>
>>>> Doug Sherman
>>>> MCSE, MCSA, MCP+I, MVP
>>>>
>>>> <churchmouse@noemail.nospam.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:OPSOy9WEGHA.1584@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Thanks folks,
>>>>> You are correct in that I wouldn't have access to the lan
>>>>> router. It
>>>>> would probably be possible to get IT to make a config change but we
>>>>> would rather just do it ourselves. I imagine that they will have a
>>>>> fit once they find out anyway but something has to change. This
>>>>> might be the catalyst.
>>>>> I didn't consider the DHCP aspect, but we could static all the
>>>> machines
>>>>> we have easily enough. I prefer that anyway so I can sniff out
>>>>> problems without chasing mac addresses.
>>>>> I'm not familar with static routes. I have seen the entry for
>>>>> them but
>>>>> never had a need, can you give me a cliff notes version of how to
>>>>> use
>>>> them?
>>>>> We also use Exchange server and domain logons that woul dhave
>>>>> to be
>>>>> validated through the central server. How much does that complicate
>>>> things?
>>>>> Perhaps a proxy (ISA) is the answer for browsing?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
>>>>> news:%23YAs%23hVEGHA.1032@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>>>>> > "Doug Sherman [MVP]" <dsherman@notampabayspamforme.rr.com> wrote
>>>>> > in message
>>>>> > news:eDJF9OVEGHA.2040@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>>> >> 2. You could use simple routing: Connect a DSL router to a LAN
>>>>> >> port
>>>> on
>>>>> >> your existing network; give it a compatible non-conflicting IP;
>>>>> >> and configure your local machines to use this IP as a default
>>>>> >> gateway.
>>>>> > However,
>>>>> >> if the city LAN comprises multiple subnets which you need to
>>>>> >> reach, you
>>>>> > must
>>>>> >> configure static routes to all of them on the DSL router -
>>>>> >> routes would point to your old LAN gateway. If your DSL router
>>>>> >> did not support
>>>>> > multiple
>>>>> >> static routes, you could configure the routes on individual
>>>>> >> machines. Whether or not the static route issue is significant
>>>>> >> requires more information about the city LAN and your specific
>>>>> >> needs.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Hi, guys...
>>>>> >
>>>>> > That is what I would suggest too,..except I would leave the
>>>>> > existing LAN router as the Default Gateway (requires no changes
>>>>> > to Hosts, DHCP
>>>> Scopes,
>>>>> > etc), then change the Default Gateway of the LAN Router to be the
>>>>> > DSL Device. If routing protocols are in use it will already know
>>>>> > about the other LAN segments and have routes to them,...if not
>>>>> > then give it the required static routes.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This way only one device is ever touched (the existing LAN
>>>>> > Router) and
>>>> it
>>>>> > prevents the LAN's Routing System from becomming dependent on a
>>>>> > DSL
>>>> Device
>>>>> > of which most are "home user" quality. Besides that, with
>>>>> > multi-segment LANS, I am always against making the "Internet
>>>>> > Sharing Device" (whatever that may be) from being the lynch-pin
>>>>> > of the LAN's Routing ability. I
>>>> like
>>>>> > to keep the LAN's routing abilty independent of anything
>>>>> > associated with the
>>>>> > Internet.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
>>>>> > www.wandtv.com
>>>>> > -----------------------------------------------------
>>>>> > Understanding the ISA 2004 Access Rule Processing
>>>>> > http://www.isaserver.org/articles/IS...cessRules.html
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Guidance
>>>>> > http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/t...dance/2004.asp
>>>>> > http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/t...dance/2000.asp
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Partners
>>>>> > http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/partners/default.asp
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Deployment Guidelines for ISA Server 2004 Enterprise Edition
>>>>> >
>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...eploy/dgisaser
>>>> ve r.msp x
>>>>> > -----------------------------------------------------
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>