[28320] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: WINS Proxy vs. Cisco IP Helper
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roeland Meyer (E-mail))
Tue Apr 25 16:00:46 2000
Reply-To: <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
From: "Roeland Meyer (E-mail)" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: "'Carter, Gregory'" <omni@dynmc.net>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Cc: <jrivera@stei.com>, <srabalais@stei.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 12:58:50 -0700
Message-ID: <006c01bfaef0$ad586a20$eaaf6cc7@PEREGRIN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <C169E193B2ECD31189230060977131660819@nacamx01b.nacavpn01.dynmc.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
If you want a really good discription of how WINS servers interoperate, =
see the Smaba documentation/browsing.txt especially concerning WINS =
interactions across sub-nets and sub-domains. It clarified stuff for me =
that the MS dox left very muddied.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> Carter, Gregory
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 12:26 PM
> To: 'nanog@merit.edu'
> Cc: 'jrivera@stei.com'; 'srabalais@stei.com'
> Subject: WINS Proxy vs. Cisco IP Helper
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Greetings!
>=20
> I have a bit of a philosophical question regarding the use of=20
> a WINS Proxy
> versus using Cisco's IP Helper to forward UDP datagram=20
> packets off to a central
> WINS server. Let me give some background to the setup of the=20
> company I work
> for.
>=20
> Currently we are noticing that we have too many WINS servers=20
> running throughout
> our divisions and some of our servers are corrupting the WINS=20
> database. As a
> whole our IS divisional managers will be meeting soon and=20
> would like to discuss
> this situation and limit our WINS servers down to one per=20
> division. We have a
> total of five divisions; the fifth is a central office where=20
> for the most part
> the whole company looks to as the head office. Each division=20
> is also split up
> into regions, which usually have a hub site that is connected=20
> up to the division
> hub site then to our main hub site (the fifth division). All=20
> of our locations
> are setup on frame relay and all of them have Cisco 1600=20
> routers. Currently we
> have a WINS server at the division site, and two regions with=20
> WINS servers in
> them. The Cisco routers use IP helper at our spoke sites to=20
> forward the UDP
> datagram packets from the local LAN of the spoke sites up to=20
> the WINS server for
> that region. The regional WINS servers then push pull up to=20
> the division WINS
> server and the division WINS server push pulls up to the=20
> company's main hub site
> (fifth division) thereby syncing the entire company.
>=20
> By limiting the divisions to a single WINS server obviously=20
> the regional WINS
> servers will either need to go away or they will need to be=20
> replaced with WINS
> proxy servers that will proxy the requests back up to the=20
> divisional server.
>=20
> My concern is to whether it would be wiser for us to dump the=20
> regional WINS
> servers altogether and change IP helper to point back to the=20
> division WINS
> server instead, or to go ahead and shut down the regional=20
> WINS servers and
> replace them with WINS proxying. I have come to the=20
> conclusion that either way
> would take the same amount of bandwidth, and as far as=20
> redundancy is concerned
> we can simply change the secondary WINS server address in=20
> DHCP to the main hub
> site's address.
>=20
> Does anyone here have a relevant opinion on this matter, or=20
> any reasons not to
> implement one or the other of the solutions?
>=20
> +(Omni@Dynmc.Net)---------------------------------------------
> ---------+
> | Dynamic Networking Solutions InterX=20
> Technologies |
> | Senior Network Administrator bits/keyID=20
> 1024/7DF9C285 |
> | omni@interx.net omni@itstudio.net omni@undernet.org=20
> omni@webpop3.com |
> +--------[ DC 50 57 59 C3 76 46 E8 EB 75 A8 94 FE 96 9E D3=20
> ]----------+
>=20
