Useless Conversation

[Merusk]

Not yet. I'm at the stage of wandering around idiotically telling people what I think is the truth.

"Audits are coming" ?

He's not an accountant so it's probably, "Lawsuits are coming."

[ghost]

One would have to assume that "Lawsuits are coming" is just part of the job.  I was expecting more crazy, possibly involving a sword.

[Lantyssa]

He just needs to find an opposing attorney whose name is Winter.  Then people can look at him funny as he chants "Winter is coming" while nobody listens.

[Yegolev]

Not yet. I'm at the stage of wandering around idiotically telling people what I think is the truth.

"Audits are coming" ?

He's not an accountant so it's probably, "Lawsuits are coming."

There are audits that don't involve finance.  I hates them like hobbitses.  But, yes, stretched for the joke.

[RhyssaFireheart]

When did Excel start requiring the use of the Developer's tab to create a simple dropdown list?

[Selby]

Sometime in the revision that changed all the menus around from the format we've used for 20 years.  It is supposed to be "more efficient" but I spend most of my time hunting for commands and functions I used to know where they were...

[Chimpy]

Dogs and Cats, Living Together, Mass Hysteria.

I'm not sure that'll even work at all....

I was hoping for all workstations can see all network services and all servers can see all workstations but the workstations on different class c ranges can't see each other. 

Just changing the subnet mask that way will not do what you want it to do.

[Viin]

Sometime in the revision that changed all the menus around from the format we've used for 20 years.  It is supposed to be "more efficient" but I spend most of my time hunting for commands and functions I used to know where they were...

I don't mind it - typical stuff is faster or just as fast. Now, finding something I haven't used in awhile but I know exists? That can take hours.

[Hammond]

Dogs and Cats, Living Together, Mass Hysteria.

I'm not sure that'll even work at all....

I was hoping for all workstations can see all network services and all servers can see all workstations but the workstations on different class c ranges can't see each other. 

Sounds like your routes are messed up. I have seen a few outfits hardcode things like that because they couldn't get dhcp setup properly...

[Salamok]

No it is hardcoded because some retard decided not using DNS was more secure...

edit - nothing routing wise is messed up we just have everything manually assigned on 172.16.1.xxx and I want more space w/o having to reconfigure every workstation.

[Viin]

I think you can only do that with another switch. If you add a new switch (with its own IP range and subnet mask), it can assign new IPs to new machines. You would then link the two switches together and set up the routing rule between the two. Edit: some switches support virtual LANs that can manage multiple networks within the same switch, something else to look at. You could even set up a DHCP server inside that new network and give away IPs within it to avoid this mess on newer machines.

[Hammond]

Hahahahahhahaha better security with no dns?


You can do it on the same switch it depends on what you got for hardware. You will need to setup a route from one subnet to the other but it really boils down to what kind of gear you are working with. There is a million ways to do it. Here is a discussion how to do it in the Cisco world. https://supportforums.cisco.com/thread/2156045

I can only imagine what other nuggets of joy you are going to uncover or have uncovered.

[Ingmar]

This whole story is causing me pain.

[Ironwood]

Yeah, it's messing with my DHCP happy story.

[Yegolev]

Now, finding something I haven't used in awhile but I know exists? That can take hours.

I just go right to the custom command thing and search for it, I don't waste time in the ribbon.

Reading this thread, I'm wondering if /etc/services is somehow insecure.

[Salamok]

Now, finding something I haven't used in awhile but I know exists? That can take hours.

I just go right to the custom command thing and search for it, I don't waste time in the ribbon.

Reading this thread, I'm wondering if /etc/services is somehow insecure.

If you are referring to my stuff it is a windows shop so /etc/services is pretty much nonexistent.  Except for the mail server that is Linux but our webserver now that has to be IIS.

edit - So what you all seem to be agreeing on is that a workstation on 172.16.1.50/255.255.255.0(set manually) can't be in the same domain as a server on 172.16.1.40/255.255.0.0(set manually) and a workstation on 172.16.2.50/255.255.0.0 (set via DHCP) can't be in the same domain as this server either?  Assuming the switch is on 172.16.1.10/255.255.0.0 and no VLANs or network bridging going on, using windows server for DHCP and leaving 172.16.1.xxx out of the DHCP assignment scope...  To me it seems like this should all work and at the very least I would have to go change all the old manual workstations to either be DHCP or have a subnet mask of 255.255.0.0 (hoping to avoid this step).  This all seems reasonable to me (not optimal obviously) but maybe my understanding of ip addressing is incorrect.

[Yegolev]

I was, but it was a joke.

[Ironwood]

edit - So what you all seem to be agreeing on is that a workstation on 172.16.1.50/255.255.255.0(set manually) can't be in the same domain as a server on 172.16.1.40/255.255.0.0(set manually) and a workstation on 172.16.2.50/255.255.0.0 (set via DHCP) can't be in the same domain as this server either?  Assuming the switch is on 172.16.1.10/255.255.0.0 and no VLANs or network bridging going on, using windows server for DHCP and leaving 172.16.1.xxx out of the DHCP assignment scope...  To me it seems like this should all work and at the very least I would have to go change all the old manual workstations to either be DHCP or have a subnet mask of 255.255.0.0 (hoping to avoid this step).  This all seems reasonable to me (not optimal obviously) but maybe my understanding of ip addressing is incorrect.

Why on Earth do you think it should work ?  Subnets are there to, er, subnet.  If they're on different subnets, they need routing.  No routing, no nothing.

I think your understanding is incorrect.

[Salamok]

I guess I had the understanding that the 255.255.0.0 subnet would encompass the 255.255.255.0 subnet and as long as the server/switch IP's were in the same address space (172.16.1.xxx) as the 255.255.255.0 subnet workstations that they would see each other.  

edit - My concern over the implications of newer workstations on 172.16.2.xxx/255.255.0.0 not seeing older workstations (172.16.1.xxx/255.255.255.0) is apparently moot since you all seem to agree that none of this will work.

[Ironwood]

Nope.

[Hammond]

I guess I had the understanding that the 255.255.0.0 subnet would encompass the 255.255.255.0 subnet and as long as the server/switch IP's were in the same address space (172.16.1.xxx) as the 255.255.255.0 subnet workstations that they would see each other.  

edit - My concern over the implications of newer workstations on 172.16.2.xxx/255.255.0.0 not seeing older workstations (172.16.1.xxx/255.255.255.0) is apparently moot since you all seem to agree that none of this will work.

Correct this will not work unless you setup routing between the subnets. Again depending on the gear at your location this could be done through a couple changes on the switches.

Also when you say domain are you talking about windows domain? If so no you can be in the same domain you just need to setup the networking aspect.

[Sky]

VLAN switching is pretty awesome, wouldn't go back. Dicking around with manual routing and running cables through a 200 year old building or using a single existing line to a new switch to open up the 200 year old building to all our available networks?

[Ingmar]

Now, finding something I haven't used in awhile but I know exists? That can take hours.

I just go right to the custom command thing and search for it, I don't waste time in the ribbon.

Reading this thread, I'm wondering if /etc/services is somehow insecure.

If you are referring to my stuff it is a windows shop so /etc/services is pretty much nonexistent.  Except for the mail server that is Linux but our webserver now that has to be IIS.

edit - So what you all seem to be agreeing on is that a workstation on 172.16.1.50/255.255.255.0(set manually) can't be in the same domain as a server on 172.16.1.40/255.255.0.0(set manually) and a workstation on 172.16.2.50/255.255.0.0 (set via DHCP) can't be in the same domain as this server either?  Assuming the switch is on 172.16.1.10/255.255.0.0 and no VLANs or network bridging going on, using windows server for DHCP and leaving 172.16.1.xxx out of the DHCP assignment scope...  To me it seems like this should all work and at the very least I would have to go change all the old manual workstations to either be DHCP or have a subnet mask of 255.255.0.0 (hoping to avoid this step).  This all seems reasonable to me (not optimal obviously) but maybe my understanding of ip addressing is incorrect.

NOTE: Domains have nothing at all to do with your problem.

[Soln]

Why are you stuck running IIS?

[Hammond]

Probably has sharepoint

[Ironwood]

SharePoint Online.

For when you don't give a fuck about subnetting.

[Merusk]

Stop trying to push your devil sorcery cloud evil!

 

[Ironwood]

 

[bhodi]

Can those of us who do IT for a living just pretend this last page didn't happen? Yes? Good.

[Lantyssa]

Speaking of networking... what are all of your preferred firewall and router solutions?

I'm not asking because I'm thinking of taking our Sonicwall outside and accidentally leaving it in a spot where it might get run over by a piece of construction equipment.  Let's just call it... curiosity.

[Yegolev]

I prefer to leave it to the people who do that sort of thing.

I'm not going to be much help here.  I don't even know what vendor is used.  Although I know some things about ipsec on AIX.  Presumably linux is similar.

[Ironwood]

Cisco.

It helps if you know the Thong Song.

[Ingmar]

Speaking of networking... what are all of your preferred firewall and router solutions?

I'm not asking because I'm thinking of taking our Sonicwall outside and accidentally leaving it in a spot where it might get run over by a piece of construction equipment.  Let's just call it... curiosity.

Cisco routers, F5 firewall.

EDIT: Is what we use, I mean. I am not especially endorsing F5 but it works fine.

[Sky]

We're also using Cisco, though we're strictly small potatoes and getting smaller.

[Zetor]

We use Endian Firewall... seems to work fine. But then, our company consists of a whopping 20 people, so "enterprise" isn't necessarily in the vocabulary.